-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.1k
Added deprecated warning to deprecated functions missing it. #3375
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
CrochetFeve0251
wants to merge
5
commits into
WordPress:trunk
Choose a base branch
from
wp-media:56589-add-deprecation-warning
base: trunk
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jrfnl, @hellofromtonya All but one of the test methods in this class will expect deprecation notices for these functions.
By defining them here, it means that
$this->expected_deprecated = array()
can be called in the one test that doesn't expect these deprecation notices to occur, and doesn't apply to later tests in the class.While this makes sense, I haven't seen this approach used in Core's test suite before, so I'm pinging for your thoughts. Note: This is also done in another file in this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just my two pennies:
I'm not keen on this as it obfuscates what's going on and effectively "hides" that the deprecation is being expected and tested for every single function (save one).
While it works, it requires a deep understanding of the test suite framework to understand what's going on, which makes these tests error prone going forward.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As a frustrated side-note (not to be actioned in this PR): why the heck is this even possible and why is the
$expected_deprecated
property in theWP_UnitTestCase_Base
classprotected
instead ofprivate
???Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @jrfnl! I agree - While more verbose to add this to each of the related test methods:
(cont.) it maintains consistency with the rest of the test suite, and makes it easier to read each test method in isolation and know exactly what should be expected without needing to review the rest of the test class.
Because you're too happy and it's important that codebases drop in these little easter eggs to disrupt the flow. 😂