Closes #23: Add tests to increase coverage of 3.17

[jeawhanlee]

Description

Fixes #23
Add tests for the LRC beacon to increase coverage.

Type of change

• Enhancement (non-breaking change which improves an existing functionality).
• Sub-task of 3.17 - LRC Beacon script implementation #7

Detailed scenario

N/A

Technical description

Documentation

Add unit tests for LRC beacon

New dependencies

N/A

Risks

N/A

Mandatory Checklist

Code validation

• I validated all the Acceptance Criteria. If possible, provide screenshots or videos.
• I triggered all changed lines of code at least once without new errors/warnings/notices.
• I implemented built-in tests to cover the new/changed code.

Code style

• I wrote a self-explanatory code about what it does.
• I protected entry points against unexpected inputs.
• I did not introduce unnecessary complexity.

Additional Checks

• In the case of complex code, I wrote comments to explain it.
• When possible, I prepared ways to observe the implemented system (logs, data, etc.).
• I added error handling logic when using functions that could throw errors (HTTP/API request, filesystem, etc.)

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ +9.52% (target: -1.00%)	✅ 100.00% (target: 50.00%)

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (6463cee)	578	294	50.87%
Head commit (8f50b8f)	578 (+0)	349 (+55)	60.38% (+9.52%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#27)	2	2	100.00%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

_{Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more}

[MathieuLamiot]

Thanks for the first tests @jeawhanlee 🙏
Would it make sense to also test some of the private methods? Not all of them are relevant for testing, but some contain core logic that could be good to capture in tests?

See the coverage report for more details: https://app.codacy.com/gh/wp-media/rocket-scripts/coverage/files/123936609510

[MathieuLamiot]

@wp-media/engineering-plugin-team Since @jeawhanlee is off today, I am bringing this back to ToDo so that someone can pick it up and consider the above comment: should we cover some of the private methods too? And if yes, add some coverage to the relevant methods.

[wordpressfan]

I believe we can add small direct tests for those mentioned methods like _getElementDistance and others to increase the coverage here, and this is quick to tackle.

[wordpressfan]

That PR is taking more than expected with me because the current PR tests depending on mocking the methods using prototypes so no way to test those methods that way because if we mocked a method in one test, we can't remove this mock in the next test to validate the base method code.
That's why I'm moving from that to use Sinon Stubs.