[NoQA] Update the checklists and proposal template to include requirement of unit tests #52439

mountiny · 2024-11-13T00:16:39Z

Explanation of Change

To uphold the quality of our codebase and decrease the number of regressions, we need a robust test suite of unit tests. For each bug found or new feature developed, we will require adding a unit test that should catch the bug before reintroducing it.

Fixed Issues

$ https://github.com/Expensify/Expensify/issues/445387
PROPOSAL:

Tests

N/A

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."

N/A

Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
- I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
- I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
- I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
- I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
- I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
- I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
  - If any non-english text was added/modified, I verified the translation was requested/reviewed in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

…date the proposal template

contributingGuides/PROPOSAL_TEMPLATE.md

tgolen

I'd love to throw a few changes to the unit test README into this PR too. Maybe you want to take a crack at them?

I'm particularly interested in expanding the "Documenting Tests" section here: https://github.com/Expensify/App/blob/main/tests/README.md

We need to explain:

How important comments are (ie. they give context for every engineer that will come after you)
The comments need to explain "why" and not just "what" (with some examples)
We should maybe clarify that hard-coded JSON (like is used to seed Onyx with) is best to be put in an external JSON file with the same name as the test.

contributingGuides/REVIEWER_CHECKLIST.md

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

mountiny · 2024-11-13T19:22:08Z

I will try to incorporate that thanks

mountiny · 2024-11-14T18:27:54Z

Thanks @tgolen, useful changes! Addressed the feedback

tgolen

Looks good!

OlimpiaZurek · 2024-11-15T07:49:47Z

LGTM

Julesssss

I love that we are forcing this and we are documenting the requirements of test cases well. But it feels to me like we're missing the 'how'. We have lots of unit tests but no UI or Component tests as far as I can see.

Let's say tomorrow someone updates the SearchRouter component and they ask how to do this. If we can't point to an example then it seems to me that the developer and contributor will be figuring out a lot of things in isolation from the rest of the team.

Maybe this is easy and I am overestimating the complexity here, but I worry we're going to end up with a wide variety of UI test implementations that we'll need to take time to standardise in a few weeks time.

mountiny · 2024-11-15T15:39:44Z

Not sure if i follow that we do not have any ui tests, the three examples in the folder are ui tests, where we mock the components and screen to verify the behaviour is correct.

But i agree with you that for ui tests more examples will be handy and we will add them to make the "how" a bit less of a concern

Julesssss · 2024-11-15T15:48:36Z

contributingGuides/PROPOSAL_TEMPLATE.md

@@ -7,6 +7,9 @@
 ### What changes do you think we should make in order to solve the problem?
 <!-- DO NOT POST CODE DIFFS -->

+### What specific scenarios should we cover in unit tests to prevent reintroducing this issue in the future?
+<!-- Clearly describe the different test cases you recommend adding or updating. Explain how they will ensure the problem is fully covered and that any future changes do not cause a regression. Consider edge cases, input variations, and typical user interactions that could trigger this issue. To get guidance on how to write unit tests, refer to the README.md in the tests folder. -->


We say 'To get guidance on how to write unit tests' here, but I believe we want all changes to be under test which includes UI/component testing. Should we update this to link to both unit and component testing folders?

Perhaps we are including component tests under 'unit', which is fine but to a contributor they might think: 'oh well I modified this components state when another component is modified, therefore I don't need to add a unit test'

Updated the proposal template 🙌

Julesssss · 2024-11-15T16:00:30Z

tests/README.md

 ```

 ## When to Write a Test

-Many of the UI features of our application should go through rigorous testing by you, your PR reviewer, and finally QA before deployment. It's also difficult to maintain UI tests when the UI changes often. Therefore, it's not valuable for us to place every single part of the application UI under test at this time. The manual testing steps should catch most major UI bugs. Therefore, if we are writing any test there should be a **good reason**.
+Many of the UI features of our application should go through rigorous testing by you, your PR reviewer, and finally QA before deployment. However, the code is mature enough now that protecting code against regressions is the top priority.

 **What's a "good reason" to write a test?**


Lets remove this line so that you must have a good reason to NOT write a test

And lets include these as a starting point: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/CC7NECV4L/p1731686459863719?thread_ts=1731609633.072659&cid=CC7NECV4L

I kept both, but put the "skip reasons" first as I think its still useful info there

tests/README.md

melvin-bot · 2024-11-26T11:11:13Z

@paultsimura Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

techievivek · 2024-11-26T11:13:36Z

Reviewer Checklist

I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
I verified the correct issue is linked in the ### Fixed Issues section above
I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the Tests section
- I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the QA steps section
- I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick).
- I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
- I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar have been tested & I retested again)
I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a /** comment above it */
- The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to this properly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. for onClick={this.submit} the method this.submit should be bound to this in the constructor)
- Any internal methods bound to this are necessary to be bound (i.e. avoid this.submit = this.submit.bind(this); if this.submit is never passed to a component event handler like onClick)
- All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.
I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native

Android: mWeb Chrome

iOS: Native

iOS: mWeb Safari

MacOS: Chrome / Safari

MacOS: Desktop

MonilBhavsar

This will be helpful!

OSBotify · 2024-11-26T11:29:07Z

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

[NoQA] Update the checklists and proposal template to include requirement of unit tests (cherry picked from commit bb4c89d) (CP triggered by mountiny)

github-actions · 2024-11-26T15:06:06Z

🚀 Cherry-picked to staging by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.66-8 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖🔄 android HybridApp 🤖🔄	success ✅
🍎🔄 iOS HybridApp 🍎🔄	success ✅

github-actions · 2024-11-26T16:12:49Z

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/mountiny in version: 9.0.66-8 🚀

platform	result
🤖 android 🤖	success ✅
🖥 desktop 🖥	success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎	success ✅
🕸 web 🕸	success ✅
🤖🔄 android HybridApp 🤖🔄	failure ❌
🍎🔄 iOS HybridApp 🍎🔄	failure ❌

mountiny added 2 commits November 13, 2024 01:08

Update the reviewer and author checklist to include unit tests and up…

6c69ab8

…date the proposal template

Update the template

f1a930d

mountiny self-assigned this Nov 13, 2024

mountiny requested review from tgolen and puneetlath November 13, 2024 00:37

puneetlath reviewed Nov 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

contributingGuides/PROPOSAL_TEMPLATE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tgolen requested changes Nov 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

contributingGuides/REVIEWER_CHECKLIST.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

tgolen and others added 5 commits November 13, 2024 14:12

Add more info on given/when/then format

e2fcccf

Improve some more of the docs

258a87a

Merge branch 'main' into vit-unitTests

c1d8f1b

Address PR feedback

a6fb203

Also mention new features

e5baec5

mountiny mentioned this pull request Nov 14, 2024

[HOLD for payment 2024-12-17] [$250] Implement tests for reports that should be displayed in LHN #52032

Closed

tgolen previously approved these changes Nov 14, 2024

View reviewed changes

OlimpiaZurek approved these changes Nov 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

puneetlath previously approved these changes Nov 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

Julesssss reviewed Nov 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

tgolen reviewed Nov 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

tests/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update tests/README.md

8bd9c6c

tgolen dismissed stale reviews from puneetlath and themself via 8bd9c6c November 19, 2024 16:24

Be even more clear

a73f142

mountiny marked this pull request as ready for review November 26, 2024 11:11

mountiny requested a review from a team as a code owner November 26, 2024 11:11

melvin-bot bot requested review from paultsimura and removed request for a team November 26, 2024 11:11

techievivek approved these changes Nov 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

MonilBhavsar approved these changes Nov 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

MonilBhavsar merged commit bb4c89d into main Nov 26, 2024
11 of 13 checks passed

MonilBhavsar deleted the vit-unitTests branch November 26, 2024 11:18

OSBotify pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 26, 2024

Merge pull request #52439 from Expensify/vit-unitTests

a11af54

[NoQA] Update the checklists and proposal template to include requirement of unit tests (cherry picked from commit bb4c89d) (CP triggered by mountiny)

github-actions bot added the CP Staging marks PRs that have been CP'd to staging label Nov 26, 2024

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Nov 26, 2024

Deploy Checklist: New Expensify 2024-11-22 #52978

Closed

75 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[NoQA] Update the checklists and proposal template to include requirement of unit tests #52439

[NoQA] Update the checklists and proposal template to include requirement of unit tests #52439

mountiny commented Nov 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tgolen left a comment

mountiny commented Nov 13, 2024

mountiny commented Nov 14, 2024

tgolen left a comment

OlimpiaZurek commented Nov 15, 2024

Julesssss left a comment •

edited

Loading

mountiny commented Nov 15, 2024

Julesssss Nov 15, 2024

Julesssss Nov 15, 2024

mountiny Nov 26, 2024

Julesssss Nov 15, 2024

Julesssss Nov 15, 2024

mountiny Nov 26, 2024

mountiny Nov 26, 2024

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 26, 2024

techievivek commented Nov 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading

MonilBhavsar left a comment

OSBotify commented Nov 26, 2024

github-actions bot commented Nov 26, 2024

github-actions bot commented Nov 26, 2024

[NoQA] Update the checklists and proposal template to include requirement of unit tests #52439

[NoQA] Update the checklists and proposal template to include requirement of unit tests #52439

Conversation

mountiny commented Nov 13, 2024 • edited Loading

Explanation of Change

Fixed Issues

Tests

Offline tests

QA Steps

PR Author Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

tgolen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny commented Nov 13, 2024

mountiny commented Nov 14, 2024

tgolen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OlimpiaZurek commented Nov 15, 2024

Julesssss left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny commented Nov 15, 2024

Julesssss Nov 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Julesssss Nov 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny Nov 26, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Julesssss Nov 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Julesssss Nov 15, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny Nov 26, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mountiny Nov 26, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

melvin-bot bot commented Nov 26, 2024

techievivek commented Nov 26, 2024 • edited Loading

Reviewer Checklist

Screenshots/Videos

MonilBhavsar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

OSBotify commented Nov 26, 2024

github-actions bot commented Nov 26, 2024

github-actions bot commented Nov 26, 2024

mountiny commented Nov 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Julesssss left a comment •

edited

Loading

techievivek commented Nov 26, 2024 •

edited

Loading