Automated testing: Add taxonomy pagination tests #71584
Merged
Conversation
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
priethor
added
the
[Type] Automated Testing
|
The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the If you're merging code through a pull request on GitHub, copy and paste the following into the bottom of the merge commit message. To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook. |
|
Size Change: 0 B Total Size: 1.94 MB ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
|
Flaky tests detected in a5b2222. 🔍 Workflow run URL: https://github.com/WordPress/gutenberg/actions/runs/17617673090
|
Mamaduka
reviewed
Sep 10, 2025
| apiFetch.mockReset(); | ||
| } ); | ||
|
|
||
| it( 'should add supportsPagination: true to taxonomy entities', async () => { |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we need a test for this. The supportsPagination is a "static" value; as long as taxonomies load from the server, it will be there.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess the value in this test is to make sure no one deletes the prop by accident! 😄
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Exactly, the reason to test the configuration is that I spent a lot of time trying to understand why taxonomies didn't explicitly support pagination, whether it was an oversight or there was a specific reason. Testing it makes it explicit, but I don't feel too strongly, we have the original PR as history/context.
Mamaduka
reviewed
Sep 10, 2025
Comment on lines
+369
to
+373
| const resolveSelect = { | ||
| getEntitiesConfig: jest | ||
| .fn() | ||
| .mockResolvedValue( loadedTaxonomyEntities ), | ||
| }; |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could just mock the full return value here, instead of running loadEntities in setup.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you mean something like
const resolveSelect = {
getEntitiesConfig: jest.fn().mockResolvedValue( [
{
baseURL: '/wp/v2/categories',
baseURLParams: { context: 'edit' },
kind: 'taxonomy',
name: 'category',
supportsPagination: true,
},
] ),
};Depends on what we're testing. If the "unit" is testing the getEntityRecord's resolver's pagination logic (&per_page=2&page=1), then yeah that makes sense to me in terms of test isolation and clearer intent.
There's less integration coverage, by which I mean, we're not testing the full flow from entity loading to pagination, but is that the intent of the test?
If not, then entity loading could have its own separate tests later on. I see this PR has already started in entities.js.
Another reason to isolate is if the entity loading logic ever has bugs, it could affect these tests. Pretty edge case. No blocker though from me.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we're just testing getEntityRecord's pagination logic, and not entity loading.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure I follow; if we mock the entity config and set supportsPagination: true, we will not be testing that taxonomies are indeed paginated after #71302. We would test that pagination works when setting supportsPagination to true, but not verify that the settings are correct. 🤔
ramonjd
reviewed
Sep 11, 2025
Member
ramonjd
left a comment
ramonjd
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for adding the test coverage!!
LGTM after feedback is resolved 🙇🏻
Contributor
Author
|
I'm happy to adjust either part of the feedback, but I feel adjusting both (removing the static check of Would it make more sense to move this test out of the resolver test suite, and mark it as a specific integration test for taxonomies |
Mamaduka
approved these changes
Sep 11, 2025
Member
Mamaduka
left a comment
Mamaduka
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My comments aren't blocker. The tests look good, so let's merge them.
P.S. I plan to introduce integration tests for the core-data package, and then it might be better to migrate the pagination-related tests there.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
What?
Follow up to #71302, add tests for taxonomy pagination functionality.
Why?
To prevent future regressions.
How?
entities.js: VerifiesloadTaxonomyEntities()addssupportsPagination: trueto taxonomy entitiesesolvers.js: Verifies pagination behavior by testing API calls useparse: falseand, most importantly, extract pagination metadata from headers, which were being discarded.Testing Instructions
The tests introduced in this PR can be run with:
supportsPagination: truefromloadTaxonomyEntitiesinpackages/core-data/src/entities.jssupportsPagination: true