Enforce "Tested up to" exclusively in the readme file

[davidperezgar]

Description

Fixes #1464

Replaces the mismatch-only validation in Plugin_Readme_Check::check_tested_up_to_mismatch() with a presence check: an error is now reported whenever the main plugin PHP file declares a Tested up to header, regardless of whether the readme value is missing, equal, or different.

Why

Tested up to is readme metadata and must live in readme file only (reference). Previously, Plugin Check only flagged this field when the header and readme values differed, which validated the duplicated declaration whenever both values happened to match — leaving two sources of truth that can silently drift in a future release.

Changes

• includes/Checker/Checks/Plugin_Repo/Plugin_Readme_Check.php

  • check_tested_up_to_mismatch() now bails only if the plugin header has no Tested up to value (or is a single-file plugin).
  • Reports a new error code plugin_header_tested_up_to_not_allowed attached to the main plugin file whenever the header declares Tested up to:
    • If the readme value differs, the message shows both values.
    • If the readme value matches, the message explains that duplication can silently drift.
    • If the readme has no value at all, a generic removal instruction is shown.
  • In all cases, the message instructs authors to remove the Tested up to line from the plugin header and keep it only in readme.txt.
  • Removed the old mismatched_tested_up_to_header error code.

• tests/phpunit/tests/Checker/Checks/Plugin_Readme_Check_Tests.php

  • Updated test_run_with_mismatch, test_run_with_match, test_run_with_header_only, test_run_with_readme_only, test_run_with_single_file_plugin, and test_run_with_no_readme to assert against the new plugin_header_tested_up_to_not_allowed code and the new expected behavior (including the previously "no error" match case, which now correctly reports an error).

Existing fixtures under tests/phpunit/testdata/plugins/test-plugin-tested-up-to-* are reused as-is; only the assertions changed to reflect the new rule.

Acceptance criteria

• Matching Tested up to in both readme and header → 1 error.
• Differing values → 1 error, message includes both values.
• Header-only declaration → 1 error.
• Readme-only declaration → no error.
• Rule remains scoped to directory plugins (single-file plugins are skipped, unchanged).

Testing

Ran the updated Plugin_Readme_Check_Tests suite locally via npm run test-php -- --filter Plugin_Readme_Check_Tests.

[github-actions]

The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the props-bot label.

If you're merging code through a pull request on GitHub, copy and paste the following into the bottom of the merge commit message.

Co-authored-by: davidperezgar <davidperez@git.wordpress.org>
Co-authored-by: frantorres <frantorres@git.wordpress.org>
Co-authored-by: ernilambar <nilambar@git.wordpress.org>
Co-authored-by: marceltannich <mardroid@git.wordpress.org>

To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook.

[ernilambar]

Two minor nits:

1. Stale method name — check_tested_up_to_mismatch() no longer checks for a mismatch, it now reports on presence alone. Consider renaming to something like check_tested_up_to_in_header() to match the new behavior.
2. Stale test for mismatched_tested_up_to_header — Plugin_Header_Fields_Check_Tests::test_run_with_mismatched_tested_up_to() and test_run_with_matching_tested_up_to() still assert against the old mismatched_tested_up_to_header code, which no longer exists anywhere in the codebase after this change.

[davidperezgar]

Done!

[marceltannich]

Tested this in Playground with both matching and different Tested up to values in the plugin header and readme, and both cases behave as expected.

The changes and test coverage look good to me. I only left one small inline comment, but nothing blocking.

[davidperezgar]

Thanks @marceltannich for your review! I'm going to update the comment.