I am wondering if we should remove, or reduce test class for deprecated fixer, which now only acts as proxy 🤔. It does not make sense to run these test cases twice. @keradus what is the correct approach?

I'm OK to keep duplicated test cases (one under old fixer name, one under new fixer name) or integration tests for both, old and new fixer, so we ensure both works the same - if proxy fixer would get broken due to whatever reason, we want to detect that. and sometimes proxy fixers are easy, but sometimes they apply some configuration or multiple new fixers, and things can get messy. also, integration tests are helping us to ensure proper priorities.

if possible , I would consider to avoid code duplication for utests, eg maybe deprecated fixer can reuse the tests class from new fixer (CompactNullableTypehintFixerTest extends CompactNullableTypeDeclarationFixerTest)

@keradus

if possible , I would consider to avoid code duplication for utests, eg maybe deprecated fixer can reuse the tests class from new fixer (CompactNullableTypehintFixerTest extends CompactNullableTypeDeclarationFixerTest)

How about b6d367b?

coverage: 94.652% (-0.009%) from 94.661% when pulling 390933e on localheinz:fix/compact-nullable-typehint into 48da0d6 on PHP-CS-Fixer:master.

Thank you, @keradus and @Wirone!