[Tests] jsx-indent, jsx-one-expression-per-line: add passing test cases

[ROSSROSALES]

Increased test coverage for jsx-one-expression-per-line.js

Fixes #2318

[ROSSROSALES]

Passing test cases for issue #2318

[ljharb]

What happened here? Can you please restore the branch and reopen the PR?

[ROSSROSALES]

I apologize, I think I pushed to master branch before my forked repo. I noticed more failing testing cases that is also why I deleted the branch but I will restore the branch and reopen the PR.
I hope to learn from this and ask for guidance moving forward!

[ljharb]

I think we should add the exact test code from the issue:

  <Layout>
    <SEO title="Home" />
    <h1>{"Hi people"}<button/></h1>
    <p>Welcome to your new Gatsby site.</p>
    <p>Now go build something great.</p>
    <h1>Hi people<button/></h1>
    <div style={{ maxWidth: `300px`, marginBottom: `1.45rem` }}>
      <Image />
    </div><Link to="/page-2/">Go to page 2</Link>
  </Layout>

[ROSSROSALES]

I think we should add the exact test code from the issue:

  <Layout>
    <SEO title="Home" />
    <h1>{"Hi people"}<button/></h1>
    <p>Welcome to your new Gatsby site.</p>
    <p>Now go build something great.</p>
    <h1>Hi people<button/></h1>
    <div style={{ maxWidth: `300px`, marginBottom: `1.45rem` }}>
      <Image />
    </div><Link to="/page-2/">Go to page 2</Link>
  </Layout>

Sorry if I ask a lot of questions, but just to clarify:

• under tests/rules/jsx-one-expression-per-line.js, I would be adding above code to the invalid: parsers.all, then provide the appropriate output?
  if so,
• since the issue is using two rules (one-expression-per-line and indent), would it be appropriate to take the suggested output of jsx-one-expression-per-line.js, and also add it to in tests/rules/jsx-indent.js invalid: parsers.all ?

Thank you for the guidance!
Please let me know if my thinking/approach is appropriate, or if I am deviating away from the solution.

[ljharb]

Yep, exactly! I'd expect the same test input to be added to both rules' test files, each covering the autofix output of the relevant rule.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3314 (86bc0db) into master (1948765) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 86bc0db differs from pull request most recent head 151a6ed. Consider uploading reports for the commit 151a6ed to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #3314   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.70%   97.70%           
=======================================
  Files         123      123           
  Lines        8777     8777           
  Branches     3184     3184           
=======================================
  Hits         8576     8576           
  Misses        201      201           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1948765...151a6ed. Read the comment docs.

[ljharb]

Looks great!