RI Recommendations Feature

[wordpressfan]

Description

Fixes #8093
Explain how this code impacts users.

Type of change

• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
• Enhancement (non-breaking change which improves an existing functionality).
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as before).
• Sub-task of #(issue number)
• Chore
• Release

Detailed scenario

What was tested

Describe the scenarios that you tested, and specify if it is automated or manual. For manual scenarios, provide a screenshot of the results.

How to test

Describe how the PR can be tested so that the validator can be autonomous: environment, dependencies, specific setup, steps to perform, API requests, etc.

Affected Features & Quality Assurance Scope

Please specify which existing features or modules are impacted by the changes in this Pull Request. This information is crucial for the QA team to properly define the testing scope and ensure comprehensive test coverage.

Technical description

Documentation

Explain how this code works. Diagrams & drawings are welcome.

New dependencies

List any new dependencies that are required for this change.

Risks

List possible performance & security issues or risks, and explain how they have been mitigated.

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.
• Output messages (errors, notices, logs) are explicit enough for users to understand the issue and are actionnable.

Unticked items justification

If some mandatory items are not relevant, explain why in this section.

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
✅ +0.41% (target: -0.10%)	✅ 92.31% (target: 50.00%)

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (2e0dc67)	42555	19394	45.57%
Head commit (a1c3818)	42923 (+368)	19739 (+345)	45.99% (+0.41%)

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 (#8122)	377	348	92.31%

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