Template/e2e/testing #1167
Template/e2e/testing #1167
Conversation
|
@John-Paul-Larkin is attempting to deploy a commit to the Codú Team on Vercel. A member of the Team first needs to authorize it. |
WalkthroughThe changes introduce two new end-to-end test specification files: Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
John-Paul-Larkin
temporarily deployed
to
production
GitHub Actions
Inactive
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
e2e/my-posts.spec.ts (1)
3-9: LGTM: Well-structured test suite for unauthenticated users.The test suite for unauthenticated users is well-structured with a
beforeEachhook to clear cookies, ensuring a clean state for each test. This is a good practice.Remember to replace the placeholder comment with actual test implementations for unauthenticated users.
e2e/settings.spec.ts (1)
1-14: Good start, but needs implementation of actual tests.The file provides a good basic structure for end-to-end tests of the settings page, with separate suites for authenticated and unauthenticated users. However, to make this file useful:
- Implement specific tests for both authenticated and unauthenticated scenarios.
- Consider adding more comprehensive test coverage, such as:
- Verifying the presence of expected UI elements
- Testing user interactions (e.g., changing settings)
- Checking error handling and edge cases
As you implement these tests, remember to follow these best practices:
- Use descriptive test names that explain the expected behavior
- Keep tests independent and isolated
- Use page object models or similar patterns to improve maintainability
- Consider different viewport sizes and device types in your tests
Would you like assistance in outlining a more comprehensive test plan for the settings page?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- e2e/my-posts.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- e2e/settings.spec.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (2)
e2e/my-posts.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Correct import for Playwright tests.The import statement is correct and imports the necessary
testobject from Playwright's test library.e2e/settings.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Correct import for Playwright tests.The import statement is correct and imports the necessary
testobject from Playwright's testing library.
| test.describe("Authenticated my-posts Page", () => { | ||
| // | ||
| // Replace with tests for authenticated users | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding a beforeEach hook for authenticated users.
The test suite for authenticated users is structured correctly, but it could benefit from a beforeEach hook to set up the authenticated state before each test. This would ensure consistency and a proper testing environment for authenticated user scenarios.
Consider adding a beforeEach hook similar to the unauthenticated suite, but instead of clearing cookies, it should set up the authenticated state. For example:
test.describe("Authenticated my-posts Page", () => {
test.beforeEach(async ({ page }) => {
// TODO: Set up authenticated state
// This might involve setting specific cookies or using a custom command to log in
});
// Replace with tests for authenticated users
});Remember to replace the placeholder comment with actual test implementations for authenticated users.
| import test from "@playwright/test"; | ||
|
|
||
| test.describe("Unauthenticated my-posts Page", () => { | ||
| test.beforeEach(async ({ page }) => { | ||
| await page.context().clearCookies(); | ||
| }); | ||
| // | ||
| // Replace with tests for unauthenticated users | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| test.describe("Authenticated my-posts Page", () => { | ||
| // | ||
| // Replace with tests for authenticated users | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Inconsistent test suite structures across e2e files.
The e2e/my-posts.spec.ts includes both "Unauthenticated" and "Authenticated" test suites, whereas other e2e test files only contain "Unauthenticated" test suites. To maintain consistency, consider standardizing the structure across all e2e test files.
🔗 Analysis chain
LGTM: Well-structured template for 'my-posts' e2e tests.
This file provides an excellent foundation for end-to-end testing of the 'my-posts' page. It aligns well with the PR objectives by:
- Creating a template file for e2e testing.
- Covering both authenticated and unauthenticated user scenarios.
- Following Playwright's recommended practices.
The structure allows for easy addition of specific tests in the future, which is in line with the author's intention to create related issues for these e2e tests.
To ensure consistency across e2e test files, let's verify if a similar structure is used in other e2e test files:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for similar structure in other e2e test files
# Test: Search for test suites in other e2e files
rg -A 5 'test.describe\("(Un)?authenticated' e2e/
Length of output: 1761
| test.describe("Authenticated settings Page", () => { | ||
| // | ||
| // Replace with tests for authenticated users | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Implement tests and consider adding a beforeEach hook for authenticated users.
- The test suite structure is correct, but it lacks actual test implementations.
- Consider adding a
beforeEachhook to set up the authenticated state for each test.
Here's a suggested structure for the authenticated users test suite:
test.describe("Authenticated settings Page", () => {
test.beforeEach(async ({ page }) => {
// TODO: Set up authenticated state
// For example:
// await page.goto('/login');
// await page.fill('#email', '[email protected]');
// await page.fill('#password', 'password123');
// await page.click('button[type="submit"]');
});
test('should display user settings when authenticated', async ({ page }) => {
// TODO: Implement test
});
// Add more tests as needed
});Would you like assistance in generating some example tests for authenticated users?
| test.describe("Unauthenticated setttings Page", () => { | ||
| test.beforeEach(async ({ page }) => { | ||
| await page.context().clearCookies(); | ||
| }); | ||
| // | ||
| // Replace with tests for unauthenticated users | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix typo and implement tests for unauthenticated users.
- There's a typo in the test suite description. "setttings" should be "settings".
- The
beforeEachhook correctly clears cookies, which is good for maintaining a clean state. - Implement actual tests for unauthenticated users as indicated by the placeholder comment.
Here's a suggested fix for the typo:
-test.describe("Unauthenticated setttings Page", () => {
+test.describe("Unauthenticated settings Page", () => {Would you like assistance in generating some example tests for unauthenticated users?
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| test.describe("Unauthenticated setttings Page", () => { | |
| test.beforeEach(async ({ page }) => { | |
| await page.context().clearCookies(); | |
| }); | |
| // | |
| // Replace with tests for unauthenticated users | |
| }); | |
| test.describe("Unauthenticated settings Page", () => { | |
| test.beforeEach(async ({ page }) => { | |
| await page.context().clearCookies(); | |
| }); | |
| // | |
| // Replace with tests for unauthenticated users | |
| }); |
| import test from "@playwright/test"; | ||
|
|
||
| test.describe("Unauthenticated my-posts Page", () => { | ||
| test.beforeEach(async ({ page }) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice! Ill implement this with some other tests also
✨ Codu Pull Request 💻
Pull Request details
I have added template files to contain e2e tests related to the 'settings' and 'my-posts' pages.
I will create issues for these e2e tests shortly.
Any Breaking changes