Why was this added? What's the reasoning? There's nothing meaningful in #5051. I much prefer the standard, consistent formatting to the new, custom formatting.

@niieani to keep consistent with how we format other tests

Before

it('name of a test', () => {
  // code
});

it(
  'name of another test',
  () => {
    // code
  },
  200
);

Now

it('name of a test', () => {
  // code
});

it('name of another test', () => {
  // code
}, 200);

Why do we format tests using a separate logic altogether?
I find default output much more readable. You can see at a glance which argument of the function is being passed into it. The new behavior has this odd trailing }, 200) is hard to read and looks really ugly.

I see this odd formatting logic only kicks in for it and test named functions. I think this is quite fragile, it means things like this will be "broken" too.

@niieani IMO that conditional is bad practice — your tests should always be static. Both sides of the ternary will format properly:

Prettier pr-5366
Playground link

--parser babylon

Output:

it("name of another test", () => {
  // code
}, 200);
it.skip("name of another test", () => {
  // code
}, 200);

Also, people will typically have many tests, so it’s more important IMO to keep the test code unindented than to have the () => { section readable.