nit: rename `unit-test` builder to `test`

[yjaaidi]

Command

test

Description

It would be nice to rename the test runner from unit-test to test for two reasons:

• It aligns with the command name.
• The builder could be used for much "wider" tests — one could indeed mount a whole set of routes and even run the tests against a real backend. It is valid usage in my opinion but the builder's name suggests differently.
• Also without going as far as my previous example, "unit-test" word should be avoided as it is hard to reach a consensus on it's definition. Some people can get very opinionated and argue that this builder should not be used for some kinds of tests.

Describe the solution you'd like

No response

Describe alternatives you've considered

No response

[dgp1130]

I probably wouldn't want to get too pedantic here. I agree that the proper definition of "unit" is very hard to nail down in a way which everyone would agree with, much in a "no true Scotsman" kind of way.

But I do think there is a general consensus in the industry about the distinction between unit tests and e2e tests, even if exactly where you draw that line or if other labels should exist between them is a bit fuzzy. Angular CLI still has an ng e2e command following this general definition.

Certainly the intended use case is for the unit-test builder to be used with unit tests (for some reasonable definition of "unit") and naming reflects that intent. But naming by no means prohibits more creative use of the infrastructure. I don't have any inherent objections if you want to spin up a real backend and verify it with a unit-test builder. It may or may not be the best option for that use case, and it's ultimately up to the developer to decide what's right for them.

TL;DR: I think the name unit-test is a more accurate representation of our intent behind the builder, and don't see it as necessarily precluding tests which might skirt the bounds of that definition or use it in more unique ways.

[yjaaidi]

Perfect! Thanks Doug.

This is exactly the statement I needed from the team.

Now I finally have a canonical comment I can point to whenever someone kicks off a dogmatic debate on the runner's name and aim. This settles it nicely.