📎 Implement lint/noExclusiveTests - eslint-plugin-jest/no-focused-tests, eslint-plugin-mocha/no-exclusive-tests, eslint-plugin-no-only-tests

[Conaclos]

Description

Implement no-focused-tests / no-exclusive-tests / no-only-test.

I think we could restrict the rule to test.only, describe.only and it.only.

Want to contribute? Lets you know you are interested! We will assign you to the issue to prevent several people to work on the same issue. Don't worry, we can unassign you later if you are no longer interested in the issue! Read our contributing guide and analyzer contributing guide.

This was proposed by @emab.

[ematipico]

I think we could restrict the rule to test.only, describe.only and it.only.

This choice is debatable, so we should really understand the rule's criteria. The original rule is made for mocha only, so should we do the same? What about other testing libraries?

For example, tape: https://www.npmjs.com/package/tape#testonlyname-opts-cb, where a user can import tape like const t = require("tape"), so it would t.only.

[Conaclos]

We can ship a first version which supports the most common usages. describe, test, and it are widely used by test frameworks (AVA, Jasmine, Jest, Mocha, Tape, ...).

I am not fond of tracking potential renaming of these functions because this implies maintaining a list of supported frameworks.

However, some rules could be dedicated to a test framework. Since most of test frameworks rely on implicit globals 🤮, we should add a way to declare the use of a framework in the configuration or a way to detect it (e.g. via package.json dev dependencies).

[ematipico]

Sounds like a good plan!

[emab]

Maybe could be a configuration option, but having a comment above a skipped test explaining why it was skipped can be extremely useful. Is this something we could consider?

[Conaclos]

Maybe could be a configuration option, but having a comment above a skipped test explaining why it was skipped can be extremely useful. Is this something we could consider?

You can already use an ignore comment with the reason. This should fulfill your request?

[emab]

I think this rule will allow you to use .skip, and doesn't force you to explain why you are skipping?

E.g. this rule will stop this:

describe.only("test", () => {});

But you can add a comment here:

// biome-ignore lint/suspicious/noExclusiveTests: I really want to run this test only!
describe.only("test", () => {});

But we will still be allowing this:

describe.skip("test", () => {});

I'm wondering if a config option requires a comment above a skipped test (not a .only test), for example:

describe.skip("test", () => {}); // lint failure - skipped test requires a comment

// TODO: Skipping until EXAMPLE-123 is completed
describe.skip("test", () => {});

[Conaclos]

I think this rule will allow you to use .skip, and doesn't force you to explain why you are skipping?

Oh yes, sorry I misread your request. I think this would be better served by a dedicated rule noSkippedTests. What do you think?

[chansuke]

I'd like to work on this issue 🙏