test(container): add container e2e UI test #65
Conversation
WalkthroughA new set of test suites has been introduced for various components, including Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (8)
tests/layout/xdesign.spec.ts (3)
3-3: Verify naming convention and consider translating to English.The test suite description is in Chinese. To ensure consistency and improve maintainability:
- Verify if this naming convention aligns with the project's standards.
- Consider translating the description to English if the project primarily uses English for code and comments.
For example:
test.describe('Layout Component XDesign Specification', () => { ... })
4-10: Good test structure, with suggestions for improvement.The test case is well-structured and covers important aspects of UI testing. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- Consider translating the test title to English for consistency.
- The URL navigation uses a fragment. Consider using a more robust method to ensure the correct page is loaded, such as checking the page title or a unique element on the page.
- The screenshot filename is hardcoded. Consider using a dynamic filename based on the test description to improve maintainability.
Example improvement for point 3:
const screenshotName = `${test.info().titlePath.join('-')}.png`.toLowerCase().replace(/\s+/g, '-'); await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot(screenshotName);
1-12: Consider expanding test coverage.The current test suite includes only a basic usage test case. To ensure comprehensive coverage of the layout component, consider adding more test cases, such as:
- Different layout configurations (e.g., with/without header, footer, sidebar)
- Responsive behavior tests
- Interaction tests (if applicable)
- Edge cases (e.g., very large or small content)
Example additional test case:
test('Responsive layout - mobile view', async ({ page }) => { await page.setViewportSize({ width: 375, height: 667 }); // ... (similar steps as the basic usage test) await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('responsive-mobile.png'); });tests/hrapprover/xdesign.spec.ts (2)
3-4: Consider improving test suite structure and naming.
- The test suite and test case names are in Chinese. For better international collaboration, consider using English names or adding English translations as comments.
- There's only one test case in this suite. Consider adding more test cases to cover different scenarios and improve test coverage.
Example of improved naming:
test.describe('HRApprover component XDesign standards', () => { test('Custom service - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { // Test implementation... }); // Additional test cases... });
7-15: LGTM: Test logic and assertions are well-structured.The test case follows a clear structure:
- Navigation to the correct page
- Verification of element visibility
- Screenshot capture
- Interaction with UI elements
- Re-verification and another screenshot capture
This approach effectively tests the UI functionality and appearance.
However, consider adding more specific assertions about the UI state after the interaction. For example:
await prover.click(); await expect(someElementThatShouldChangeAfterClick).toHaveText('Expected text');tests/container/xdesign.spec.ts (3)
4-10: LGTM: Well-structured test case with good practices.The test case effectively covers the basic usage of the container component. It includes error handling, viewport checking, and screenshot comparison, which are all good practices for UI testing.
Consider using English for test case names to improve readability for international contributors. For example:
test('Basic Usage - UI Screenshot', async ({ page }) => { // ... (rest of the test case) })
12-18: LGTM: Consistent test structure, but consider refactoring.The test case for custom width and height follows the same good practices as the first test case, which is excellent for consistency.
To reduce code duplication and improve maintainability, consider refactoring both test cases into a single parameterized test. Here's an example of how you could do this:
interface TestCase { name: string; url: string; selector: string; screenshotName: string; } const testCases: TestCase[] = [ { name: 'Basic Usage - UI Screenshot', url: 'container#basic-usage', selector: '#basic-usage .pc-demo', screenshotName: 'basic-usage.png', }, { name: 'Custom Width and Height - UI Screenshot', url: 'container#custom-with-height', selector: '#custom-with-height .pc-demo', screenshotName: 'custom-with-height.png', }, ]; testCases.forEach(({ name, url, selector, screenshotName }) => { test(name, async ({ page }) => { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()); await page.goto(url); const demo = page.locator(selector); await expect(demo).toBeInViewport(); await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot(screenshotName); }); });This approach makes it easier to add new test cases in the future and reduces the likelihood of inconsistencies between test cases.
1-19: Consider adding more test cases for comprehensive coverage.The current test suite covers basic usage and custom width/height scenarios, which is a good start. To ensure more comprehensive coverage of the container component, consider adding the following test cases:
- Test with different content types (text, images, nested components).
- Test with extreme dimensions (very small or very large).
- Test responsive behavior if applicable.
- Test any interactive features of the container (if any).
- Test with different themes or styles if supported.
These additional test cases will help ensure the container component behaves correctly under various conditions and use cases.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
🔇 Files ignored due to path filters (5)
tests/container/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/basic-usage-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/container/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/custom-with-height-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/hrapprover/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/custom-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/hrapprover/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/custom-service-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/layout/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/basic-usage-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.png
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- tests/container/xdesign.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/hrapprover/xdesign.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/layout/xdesign.spec.ts (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments not posted (4)
tests/layout/xdesign.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and necessary.The import statement is appropriate for writing Playwright tests, importing only the necessary functions
expectandtest.tests/hrapprover/xdesign.spec.ts (2)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and concise.The necessary Playwright testing utilities are imported correctly.
1-17: Overall assessment: Good start, but room for improvement.This new e2e UI test for the hrapprover component is a positive addition to the project, aligning well with the PR objectives. The test structure and use of Playwright are appropriate. However, there are several areas for improvement:
- Internationalization: Consider using English for test names or providing translations.
- Test coverage: Add more test cases to cover various scenarios.
- Error handling: Refine the approach to avoid suppressing all errors indiscriminately.
- Assertions: Include more specific assertions about UI state changes after interactions.
These enhancements would significantly improve the robustness and maintainability of the test suite.
tests/container/xdesign.spec.ts (1)
1-3: LGTM: Imports and test structure are well-organized.The imports from '@playwright/test' are correct, and the test structure using
test.describeprovides a clear context for the container component tests.
| // 受服务影响，控制台有报错，运行时可注释异常捕获 | ||
| page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reconsider the error handling approach.
The current error handling suppresses all page errors, which might hide important issues. Consider logging the errors or only suppressing specific known errors.
Suggested improvement:
page.on('pageerror', (exception) => {
console.warn('Page error:', exception);
// Only ignore specific errors if necessary
if (exception.message.includes('Known error to ignore')) {
return;
}
expect(exception).toBeNull();
});| await page.goto('hrapprover#custom-service') | ||
| const demo = page.locator('#custom-service .pc-demo') | ||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('custom-service.png') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Visual Regression Testing Not Configured in CI/CD Pipeline
The shell script indicates that no visual regression testing configuration was found in the CI/CD pipeline. Please ensure that visual regression tests are properly set up to handle screenshot comparisons effectively.
🔗 Analysis chain
Good use of visual regression testing.
The use of screenshots for visual comparison is a good practice for catching unexpected UI changes. However, ensure that your CI/CD pipeline is set up to handle these visual comparisons effectively.
To ensure the screenshot comparison is set up correctly in the CI/CD pipeline, you can run the following command:
Also applies to: 15-15
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if visual regression testing is configured in CI/CD
# Look for configuration files that might include visual regression setup
fd -e yml -e yaml -e json | xargs grep -i "screenshot\|visual\|image.?comparison" || echo "No visual regression testing configuration found in CI/CD files."
Length of output: 222
PR
PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
Issue Number: N/A
What is the new behavior?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
container,hrapprover, andlayoutcomponents to validate UI functionality.Tests