tracking: format test names

[timreichen]

Ref: #2553 (comment)

This issue tracks the implementation progress of adapting the following format for test names in each sub-module:

<symbol>() <description> // E.g. ensureDir() creates the directory if it doesn't exist

• archive
• assert
• async
• bytes
• cli
• collections
• console
• crypto
• csv
• datetime
• dotenv
• encoding
• expect
• flags
• fmt
• front_matter
• fs
• html
• http
• io
• json
• jsonc
• log
• media_types
• msgpack
• path
• regexp
• semver
• streams
• testing
• text
• toml
• ulid
• url
• uuid
• webgpu
• yaml

[JakeAve]

I'm working on fs - should be done tomorrow

[scarf005]

https://github.com/denoland/deno-docs/blob/2c90cc2eca70c484e5fbfc61d256bf7342a2e95e/runtime/manual/references/contributing/style_guide.md?plain=1#L310-L327

maybe the test name rules could be documented in deno manual. should I open PR/issue?

[iuioiua]

Ah, yes. We do need to add something in the contributing guidelines. A PR would be welcome!

[syhol]

Is there a way to make the linter enforce this?

[syhol]

Would it be worth using the bdd.ts describe blocks to define the subject under test?

Deno.test({
  name: "[std/datetime] isLeap",
  fn() {
    assert(isLeap(1992));
    assert(isLeap(2000));
    assert(!isLeap(2003));
    assert(!isLeap(2007));
    assert(!isLeap(new Date("1970-01-02")));
    assert(isLeap(new Date("1972-01-02")));
    assert(isLeap(new Date("2000-01-02")));
    assert(!isLeap(new Date("2100-01-02")));
  },
});

to

import { describe, it } from "../testing/bdd.ts";

describe("isLeap()", () => {
  it("identifies leap years for numbers", () => {
    assert(isLeap(1992));
    assert(isLeap(2000));
    assert(!isLeap(2003));
    assert(!isLeap(2007));
  });

  it("identifies leap years for Date instances", () => {
    assert(!isLeap(new Date("1970-01-02")));
    assert(isLeap(new Date("1972-01-02")));
    assert(isLeap(new Date("2000-01-02")));
    assert(!isLeap(new Date("2100-01-02")));
  });
});

It forces the format you're after: Subject under test and description of desired behaviour

The big downside is that you loose the test integration in vscode:

[iuioiua]

docs: unified test names

I don't think so.

Would it be worth using the bdd.ts describe blocks to define the subject under test?

The current approach of using std/assert with Deno.test() (and steps, if needed) already works fine.

[iuioiua]

For anyone wanting to contribute, only std/testing remains.