codesniffer: Add Jetpack.PHPUnit.TestMethodCovers sniff

[anomiex]

Proposed changes:

PHPUnit 11 has effectively deprecated using @covers on test methods, as the annotation is deprecated in favor of attributes that can only be used at the class level.

This new sniff will move the @covers directives from the methods to the class.

The new sniff is disabled for the moment in the monorepo itself; a followup PR will fix all the existing instances and enable the sniff.

Other information:

• Have you written new tests for your changes, if applicable?
• Have you checked the E2E test CI results, and verified that your changes do not break them?
• Have you tested your changes on WordPress.com, if applicable (if so, you'll see a generated comment below with a script to run)?

Jetpack product discussion

PT: pf4qpu-Fo-p2

Does this pull request change what data or activity we track or use?

No

Testing instructions:

• CI happy? Tests seem to cover all use cases?
• Revert the change to .phpcs.xml.dist and run composer phpcs:lint:required. See what it flags. Try running composer phpcs:fix on some of those files.

[github-actions]

Thank you for your PR!

When contributing to Jetpack, we have a few suggestions that can help us test and review your patch:

• ✅ Include a description of your PR changes.
  
• 🔴 Add a "[Status]" label (In Progress, Needs Review, ...).
  
• ✅ Add a "[Type]" label (Bug, Enhancement, Janitorial, Task).
  
• ✅ Add testing instructions.
  
• ✅ Specify whether this PR includes any changes to data or privacy.
  
• ✅ Add changelog entries to affected projects
  

This comment will be updated as you work on your PR and make changes. If you think that some of those checks are not needed for your PR, please explain why you think so. Thanks for cooperation 🤖

---

Follow this PR Review Process:

1. Ensure all required checks appearing at the bottom of this PR are passing.
2. Make sure to test your changes on all platforms that it applies to. You're responsible for the quality of the code you ship.
3. You can use GitHub's Reviewers functionality to request a review.
4. When it's reviewed and merged, you will be pinged in Slack to deploy the changes to WordPress.com simple once the build is done.

If you have questions about anything, reach out in #jetpack-developers for guidance!

[jp-launch-control]

Code Coverage Summary

4 files are newly checked for coverage.

File	Coverage
projects/packages/codesniffer/Jetpack/Sniffs/PHPUnit/TestMethodCoversSniff.php	142/142 (100.00%) 💚
projects/packages/codesniffer/src/Utils/DocBlocks.php	46/46 (100.00%) 💚
projects/packages/codesniffer/src/Utils/Navigation.php	72/72 (100.00%) 💚
projects/packages/codesniffer/src/Utils/Tokens.php	24/24 (100.00%) 💚

Full summary · PHP report

[tbradsha]

That's an impressive set of tests! I only skimmed the sniff + utils, but things seem to work:

1. Removed rule exclusion.
2. Got lots of warnings with composer phpcs:lint:required.
3. composer phpcs:fix projects/packages/stats/tests/php/Tracking_Pixel_Test.php
4. Four warnings were fixed by removing things from the methods, but I was expecting the @covers to be moved to the class. As it turns out, this already had an appropriate class-level @covers.
5. Doing the same for projects/packages/publicize/tests/php/Share_Post_Controller_Test.php added it to the class.

I guess now that we're "covering" at the class level, this means code coverage will likely go up artificially, yes? Would PHPUnit allow @covers SomeClass::asdf at the class level?

The base branch was changed.

[anomiex]

I guess now that we're "covering" at the class level, this means code coverage will likely go up artificially, yes? Would PHPUnit allow @covers SomeClass::asdf at the class level?

It does since PHPUnit 11.1. OTOH, if there are some test methods currently doing @covers SomeClass::asdf and others doing nothing, just the @covers SomeClass::asdf would reduce coverage. Overall I think @covers SomeClass will probably do closer to the right thing more often than not, at least for our code base, but I made it configurable.

[tbradsha]

Sorry, missed that this needed another review.