Do not treat test_ methods with arguments as test methods

[fatkodima]

While testing #229 on https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website, it detected this - https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/blob/b278bc06ef720af8c21c99659c4d70334384c386/test/integration/oauth2_test.rb#L141, because rubocop-minitest detects all class methods starting with test_ as test cases. But we should ignore such methods having arguments.

[koic]

Makes sense! AFAIK, the conditions of the test method are as follows:

1. name starts with test_
2. is of public scope
3. no arguments

Can you add a test code and changelog entry?

[fatkodima]

Added a test code and changelog entry. I decided to extract test cases into a separate file instead of dumping into some random cop test file. Is it ok?

[andyw8]

What does the p mean here?

[fatkodima]

"predicate". It's a replacement for ? at the end of the method name. I saw this convention in the ruby source code. For example, https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/a9bcc058bb4cd954e8406c93debb876983627ca9/array.c#L8851.

[koic]

Even if p is used in the product code, the test_ descriptions might be easier to understand with predicate.
On a side note, p reminds me of LISP :-)

[koic]

It could be reduced to the single argument. The entire place where SOURCE is used.

Suggested change

	def test_test_case_p_returns_false_for_test_methods_with_arguments
	refute Helper.test_case?(method_node(SOURCE, :test_with_arguments))
	end
	private
	def method_node(source, method_name)
	class_node = parse_source!(source).ast
	def test_test_case_p_returns_false_for_test_methods_with_arguments
	refute Helper.test_case?(method_node(:test_with_arguments))
	end
	private
	def method_node(method_name)
	class_node = parse_source!(SOURCE).ast

[koic]

test_method? might be better, AFAIK signature doesn't include scope.

Suggested change

	def test_case_signature?(def_node)
	def test_method?(def_node)

[fatkodima]

Updated with the suggestions.

[koic]

Thanks!