META: Features 3.x test coverage

This looks like a great start, thanks!

Does this need any updating given subsequent code changes?

Raising priority, since lack of tests is a beta blocker. We should aim to get this applied as soon as possible.

+++ b/src/FeaturesManagerInterface.php
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ interface FeaturesManagerInterface {
+  const STATUS_DEFAULT = self::STATUS_NO_EXPORT;

This bug fix is now covered in #2488838: Notice: Use of undefined constant STATUS_NO_EXPORT so should be removed.

@jhedstrom: can you explain a bit your thoughts on what will be possible to cover in unit tests (PHPUnit)and what will need functional tests (Simpletest)?

Also, since this is the base testing for Features and will serve as a model for what comes, what would you think about fleshing out the code comments a bit for the benefit of other developers less familiar with what's involved? Some suggestions....

1. +++ b/tests/src/Unit/FeaturesManagerTest.php
   @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
   +  public function setUp() {
   

   Some inline documentation of the steps here would be good.

2. +++ b/tests/src/Unit/FeaturesManagerTest.php
   @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
   +    return [
   

   A comment for each of the arrays here would be good. What do they represent?

3. +++ b/tests/src/Unit/FeaturesManagerTest.php
   @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
   +    $packages = ['foo' => 'bar'];
   

   What does this data structure represent?

Almost all of the config module testing in core is done with simpletest. I recently added some basic simpletest testing to Configuration Share, #2572323: Add tests for config_share.

Yes, it would be ideal to have unit test coverage. But a potential interim approach would be to focus first on functional tests, using test modules that provide configuration, drawing where appropriate on the core tests for config module. Those could at least cover broad areas of functionality.

@jhedstrom: thanks for fixing this up. I'm not sure what's up with the test bot. All features 3.x tests are passing for me locally.

Ah, thanks, that'd do it!

Changing this to a meta issue. Thinking we can open child tickets for specific tests.