🔬 Testing: move towards a more explicit approach

[cameron-robey]

Our current testing is full of a mixture of mocks and handlers that are either called explicitly, or run under the hood for all tests. An example of something called explicitly are runInTmpDir(), and something not called explicitly is the mocking of fetch by jest (which is in works to be replaced by MSW in the eventual move to vitest).

The approach we want to move towards is the explicit approach: we want to know all the behaviour change that might be present in a test by reading the test.

In essence, a new test written with no mocks or handlers called should run the test exactly as expected. In order to mock things or change behaviour we called a hook or equivalent to enable it for that particular test or suite of tests.

This will make our tests more verbose, however this is a tradeoff worth making to make it much easier to read and develop tests (especially for those unfamiliar with our codebase).

[rozenmd]

I've been burned several times by our global mocking approach, would love us to move towards a model where you can glance at a test, and know "the state of the universe" as it executes.

[JacobMGEvans]

Alright, I will be reworking the MSW approach to create a explicit abstraction that allows for Global-ish setup but inline explicit helpers/utilities

[JacobMGEvans]

Two adjacent issues:

• Abstracting MSW for standardization and implementation of inline pattern 🔬 Testing: Mock Service Workers abstractions #1875
• Conversion of tests to using MSW removing the Custom Mocking our code overhead and dependecy 🔬 Testing: Conversion to Mock Service Workers #1874

[cameron-robey]

Just linking these here so they get thought about alongside the overarching discussion about testing:

• 🔬 Properly test validation of config #1960
• 🔬 Properly test proxy server #1961