Include fullName in formattedAssertion

[aifreedom]

Summary
This PR adds an additional field fullName to FormattedAssertionResult.

When we try to analyze the test result json, we find that two it test cases under different describe block in one test file are rendered the same in the json report. Including the full name help solving this issue.

Test plan

The function I touched doesn't have a test. It was added here in #1988.

Sample json from my test run:

...
    "testResults": [
        {
            "assertionResults": [
                {
                    "failureMessages": [],
                    "fullName": "Header renders",
                    "status": "passed",
                    "title": "renders"
                },
                {
                    "failureMessages": [],
                    "fullName": "Header renders <Element /> with right props",
                    "status": "passed",
                    "title": "renders <Element /> with right props"
                }
            ],
            "endTime": 1493233733071,
            "message": "",
            "name": "/path/to/the/test/file.js",
            "startTime": 1493233730480,
            "status": "passed",
            "summary": ""
        }
    ],
...

[facebook-github-bot]

Thank you for your pull request. We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and yours has expired.

Before we can review or merge your code, we need you to email [email protected] with your details so we can update your status.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #3378 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #3378   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   64.89%   64.89%           
=======================================
  Files         176      176           
  Lines        6521     6521           
  Branches        4        4           
=======================================
  Hits         4232     4232           
  Misses       2288     2288           
  Partials        1        1

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/jest-util/src/formatTestResults.js	0% <ø> (ø)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update dfcc4b2...07915ed. Read the comment docs.

[facebook-github-bot]

Thank you for signing our Contributor License Agreement. We can now accept your code for this (and any) Facebook open source project. Thanks!

[cpojer]

We actually have a lint rule in eslint-plugin-jest that prevents you from having two tests with the same name. I recommend using that instead – will that work for you?

[ljharb]

That seems kind of orthogonal to "including more information in the results" - also the whole point of "describe" is that the "it" can be generic, since the describe provides more context.

[thymikee]

Actually what's wrong with adding just one extra property?

[ljharb]

(To clarify; I'm saying that requiring "it"s to be unique makes no sense and runs counter to the entire point of BDD-style test frameworks like jasmine, jest, and mocha)

[cpojer]

You can have the same test name but not within the same describe block, of course.

…

________________________________ From: Jordan Harband <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 5:57:08 PM To: facebook/jest Cc: Christoph Pojer; State change Subject: Re: [facebook/jest] Include fullName in formattedAssertion (#3378) (To clarify; I'm saying that requiring "it"s to be unique makes no sense and runs counter to the entire point of BDD-style test frameworks like jasmine, jest, and mocha) — You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#3378 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAA0KGMIEgnWGrdofyksXr2DRdSRMY4jks5r0hpkgaJpZM4NJaVH>.

[ljharb]

Ah, that makes much more sense. :-)

In that case the linter rule seems very useful; but it'd still be useful to include this additional context in the output. Could it be reopened?

[cpojer]

Yes, if you send some tests for it :)

…

________________________________ From: Jordan Harband <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 6:23:57 PM To: facebook/jest Cc: Christoph Pojer; State change Subject: Re: [facebook/jest] Include fullName in formattedAssertion (#3378) Ah, that makes much more sense. :-) In that case the linter rule seems very useful; but it'd still be useful to include this additional context in the output. Could it be reopened? — You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#3378 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAA0KC3D69g8Vi9IKKa_GlZ3xl5ICFCrks5r0iCtgaJpZM4NJaVH>.

[ljharb]

I don't think the PR can be updated unless it's opened, and when a collaborator closes it, I don't think anyone but a collaborator can reopen it :-) how to solve this chicken and egg problem? :-p

[cpojer]

You just go and send a new PR.

[ljharb]

and if my coworker (the OP) wants to write the tests instead, they should send a new PR?

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.
Please note this issue tracker is not a help forum. We recommend using StackOverflow or our discord channel for questions.