Tests: Improve code coverage for _build_block_template_result_from_file

[gziolo]

Trac ticket: https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/59325

Follow-up to the comment from @costdev in #5186 (comment):

Here's a coverage report which includes existing tests and tests included in this PR.

Everything that this PR intends to cover appears to be covered. 🙂

In terms of the remaining coverage for this function:

• Line 585 isn't hit by the tests that specifically cover this function.
• Two branches aren't covered.
  • One branch can be covered by testing with a postTypes key in $template_file and a $template_type of wp_template.
  • One branch can be covered by ensuring both outcomes of line 572 are met by tests, then testing $template->title for the expected result.
• There don't appear to be tests specifically for this function that provide a non-default slug in $template_file. This means lines 578-581, while hit by the tests, don't appear to have coverage to ensure that $template->title is retained for wp_template types with a non-default slug in the $template_file.

As the uncovered parts don't seem to be part of this PR's goals, we can follow up to complete coverage for _build_block_template_result_from_file(). I'd also suggest that we start to separate the tests for each function into their own files, completing @ticket, @covers, and any other annotations that need to be added. This makes it easier not to get lost amongst the tests.

All cases listed should be covered with this PR.

---

This Pull Request is for code review only. Please keep all other discussion in the Trac ticket. Do not merge this Pull Request. See GitHub Pull Requests for Code Review in the Core Handbook for more details.

[ockham]

Left a minor note about test method names, but nothing blocking.

Thank you! LGTM 😊

[gziolo]

Thank you for the feedback. I’ll rename and move test cases as suggested and land tomorrow 👍

[costdev]

Thanks for the updates @gziolo! This looks good to me!

Coverage shows the hooked_blocks() lines aren't covered by these tests.

It would be good to cover these two conditions so there's a complete set of tests in this function's test class. Even if covered by tests for another function, having tests here means that if these tests pass and the other function's fail, we know to look in the other function right away.

That said, the final coverage doesn't need to be done in this PR and could be a follow-up if you'd like.

Approving 🙂

[gziolo]

It would be good to cover these two conditions so there's a complete set of tests in this function's test class.

Do I understand correctly that you mean adding coverage in the same test suite? I'm sure it has coverage in other places, but I agree we can add another test here 👍🏻

I want to wait until #5455 as I will have to rebase this branch and probably remove one or two tests, maybe move some new tests. I can work on the feedback as part of that.

[gziolo]

Committed with https://core.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/56983.

It would be good to cover these two conditions so there's a complete set of tests in this function's test class.

I will work on more tests separately covering the filter hooked_block_types, and I will tackle it as part of that effort.