add privacy policy tests (automation suite) #2378
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several enhancements across multiple page classes in the testing framework. Key changes include the addition of new methods for handling dropdown selections and navigation, modifications to existing methods for improved loading and visibility checks, and updates to CSS selectors for consistency. Additionally, the test suites have been adjusted to activate previously skipped tests and refine data structures used in settings. Overall, these changes aim to streamline navigation and interaction logic within the application. Changes
Possibly related PRs
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: 1
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (18)
tests/pw/tests/e2e/privacyPolicy.spec.ts (1)
Issue: Remaining references to
customerPagefoundThe
customerPagevariable is still referenced in several test files, which may affect code cleanliness and functionality.Please address the remaining references in the following files:
tests/pw/tests/e2e/wholesaleCustomers.spec.tstests/pw/tests/e2e/vendorReturnRequest.spec.tstests/pw/tests/e2e/euCompliance.spec.tstests/pw/tests/e2e/customer.spec.tsAnalysis chain
Line range hint
8-46: Approval: Removal of unused variableThe removal of the
customerPagevariable improves code cleanliness by eliminating unused declarations.Please verify:
- The
customerPagevariable is indeed no longer needed in any of the tests.- Its removal doesn't affect any test cases or setup.
You can run the following command to check if there are any remaining references to
customerPagein this file or related test files:Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining references to customerPage in test files rg --type typescript 'customerPage' tests/pw/tests/e2e/Length of output: 205
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining references to 'customerPage' in TypeScript test files rg 'customerPage' tests/pw/tests/e2e/ --type-add 'typescript:*.ts' --type typescriptLength of output: 1742
tests/pw/pages/singleStorePage.ts (3)
22-22: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.The change from
goIfNotTheretogotoSingleStoreis a good improvement for consistency. The new method signature withstoreNameparameter allows for more flexible testing.Consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of
gotoSingleStorefor better code readability:+ // Navigate to the specified store's page await this.gotoSingleStore(storeName);
62-64: LGTM! Consider adding error handling.The changes improve the method's functionality and reliability. The new assertion ensures that products are present after sorting, which is a good addition.
Consider adding error handling to provide more informative feedback if the assertion fails:
await this.gotoSingleStore(storeName); await this.selectByValueAndWaitForResponseAndLoadState(data.subUrls.frontend.vendorDetails(helpers.slugify(storeName)), singleStoreCustomer.sortBy, sortBy); - await this.notToHaveCount(singleStoreCustomer.productCard.card, 0); + try { + await this.notToHaveCount(singleStoreCustomer.productCard.card, 0); + } catch (error) { + throw new Error(`No product cards found after sorting by ${sortBy}. Original error: ${error.message}`); + }
96-96: LGTM! Consider enhancing type safety.The change from
goIfNotTheretogotoSingleStoreis consistent with the improvements in other methods, contributing to a more uniform test suite.To improve type safety, consider using a type assertion or a type guard when accessing
singleStoreCustomer.sharePlatForms[site]. This can help prevent runtime errors if an invalidsiteis provided:type SharePlatform = keyof typeof singleStoreCustomer.sharePlatForms; async storeShare(storeName: string, site: SharePlatform): Promise<void> { // ... existing code ... if (!(site in singleStoreCustomer.sharePlatForms)) { throw new Error(`Invalid share platform: ${site}`); } await this.toHaveAttribute(singleStoreCustomer.sharePlatForms[site], 'target', '_blank'); await this.setAttributeValue(singleStoreCustomer.sharePlatForms[site], 'target', '_self'); await this.clickAndWaitForUrl(new RegExp('.*' + site + '.*'), singleStoreCustomer.sharePlatForms[site]); }This change ensures that
siteis a valid key ofsharePlatFormsat compile-time and runtime.tests/pw/tests/e2e/productAdvertising.spec.ts (1)
Line range hint
105-111: Consistent use oftest.slow()with suggestion for improvementThe addition of
test.slow()here maintains consistency with the previous tests and is appropriate for this potentially time-consuming test involving auction product advertising.Consider extracting the common
test.slow()configuration to a higher level, such as the describe block or a custom test function, to improve maintainability. For example:const slowTest = test.extend({ test: async ({ test }, use) => { await use(test.slow()); }, }); // Then use it like this: slowTest('vendor can buy auction product advertising', async ({ page }) => { // Test logic here });This approach would allow you to easily apply the
slowconfiguration to multiple tests without repeating thetest.slow()call in each test.tests/pw/pages/storeListingPage.ts (4)
73-75: Improved sorting logic and verificationThe changes in this method are well-thought-out:
- Using
goToStoreList()simplifies navigation and maintains consistency.selectByValueAndWaitForResponseAndLoadStateensures the page is fully loaded after sorting.- The added check for store cards verifies the sorting operation's success.
These improvements enhance the reliability of the sorting test.
Consider adding an assertion message to the
notToHaveCountcheck for better error reporting:await this.notToHaveCount(storeList.storeCard.storeCardDiv, 0, 'No store cards found after sorting');
99-99: Consistent navigation and potential improvementThe change to use
goToStoreList()is consistent with other methods and simplifies the navigation logic. This improves code maintainability and readability.Consider adding error handling for the case where the store is not found after searching:
const storeVisible = await this.isVisible(storeList.visitStore(storeName)); if (!storeVisible) { throw new Error(`Store "${storeName}" not found after search`); }This addition would make the test more robust by explicitly handling failure cases.
108-108: Improved consistency and code cleanlinessThe changes in this method are positive:
- Using
goToStoreList()maintains consistency with other methods.- Removal of commented-out code improves overall code cleanliness.
These changes enhance readability and maintainability.
Consider extracting the filter logic into separate private methods for each filter type. This would improve the method's readability and make it easier to maintain. For example:
private async filterByLocation(value: string): Promise<void> { await this.typeAndWaitForResponse(data.subUrls.gmap, storeList.filters.filterDetails.location, value); await this.click(storeList.mapResultFirst); } // Similar methods for other filter types async filterStores(filterBy: string, value?: string): Promise<void> { await this.goToStoreList(); await this.click(storeList.filters.filterButton); switch (filterBy) { case 'by-location': await this.filterByLocation(value!); break; // Other cases... } // Rest of the method... }This refactoring would make the
filterStoresmethod more concise and easier to understand.
144-144: Consistent navigation and potential improvementThe change to use
goToStoreList()is consistent with other methods and simplifies the navigation logic. This improves code maintainability and readability.Consider adding error handling for the case where the store is not found on the map:
if (storeName) { const storeOnList = await this.isVisible(storeList.map.storeOnMap.storeOnList(storeName)); if (!storeOnList) { throw new Error(`Store "${storeName}" not found on the map`); } }This addition would make the test more robust by explicitly handling failure cases.
tests/pw/pages/withdrawsPage.ts (2)
117-117: LGTM! Consider adding a timeout for better reliability.The addition of this assertion is a good improvement to verify that the UI updates correctly after processing a withdraw request. It ensures that the withdraw cell for the given vendor is no longer visible, which is the expected behavior after approving, canceling, or deleting a request.
To improve the reliability of this test, especially in cases where the UI might take a moment to update, consider adding a timeout to the
notToBeVisibleassertion. For example:await this.notToBeVisible(withdrawsAdmin.withdrawCell(vendorName), { timeout: 5000 });This gives the UI up to 5 seconds to update, reducing the chance of false negatives in slower environments.
Line range hint
1-265: Great addition to improve test coverage. Consider expanding assertions for other scenarios.The addition of the visibility check after updating a withdraw request is a valuable improvement to the test coverage. It ensures that the UI correctly reflects the changes made to withdraw requests, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity of financial operations in the system.
To further enhance the testing framework, consider the following suggestions:
Add similar visibility checks to other methods that modify the state of withdraw requests, such as
withdrawBulkAction.Implement more granular assertions for different action types in
updateWithdrawRequest. For example, after an 'approve' action, you might want to check if the request moves to an 'approved' list or changes its status indicator.Consider adding error scenario testing. For instance, what happens if a withdraw request fails to update? How does the UI respond, and how can we assert this behavior?
If not already implemented elsewhere, consider adding integration tests that cover the full lifecycle of a withdraw request from creation to final state (approved, cancelled, or deleted).
These suggestions aim to create a more comprehensive testing suite that covers various scenarios and edge cases, further improving the reliability of the withdraws feature.
tests/pw/pages/customerPage.ts (2)
48-50: LGTM! Consider adding error handling.The new
gotoSingleStoremethod is a good addition to theCustomerPageclass. It uses thehelpers.slugifyfunction to create a URL-friendly version of the store name, which is a good practice. The method also uses the existinggoIfNotTheremethod, promoting code reuse.However, consider adding error handling for cases where the
storeNamemight be invalid or the navigation fails.Here's a suggestion to add basic error handling:
async gotoSingleStore(storeName: string): Promise<void> { + if (!storeName) { + throw new Error('Store name cannot be empty'); + } - await this.goIfNotThere(data.subUrls.frontend.vendorDetails(helpers.slugify(storeName)), 'networkidle'); + try { + await this.goIfNotThere(data.subUrls.frontend.vendorDetails(helpers.slugify(storeName)), 'networkidle'); + } catch (error) { + throw new Error(`Failed to navigate to store: ${storeName}. ${error.message}`); + } }
Line range hint
1-594: Consider improving class structure and documentation.While the new
gotoSingleStoremethod is a good addition, there are some general improvements that could enhance the overall quality and maintainability of theCustomerPageclass:
Group related methods: The class contains many methods. Consider grouping related methods using comments or regions for better organization.
Add JSDoc comments: Add JSDoc comments to methods, especially public ones, to improve code documentation and IDE support.
Consider breaking down large methods: Some methods like
placeOrderandgetOrderDetailsare quite long. Consider breaking them down into smaller, more focused methods.Consistent error handling: Implement a consistent error handling strategy across all methods, similar to what was suggested for
gotoSingleStore.Use TypeScript interfaces: For complex parameter objects (like in
addBillingAddress), consider defining and using TypeScript interfaces for better type checking and code clarity.Here's an example of how you could start implementing these suggestions:
/** * Represents a customer page with various customer-related operations. */ export class CustomerPage extends BasePage { constructor(page: Page) { super(page); } // Navigation methods // ----------------- /** * Navigates to a single store page. * @param storeName The name of the store to navigate to. * @throws {Error} If the store name is empty or navigation fails. */ async gotoSingleStore(storeName: string): Promise<void> { if (!storeName) { throw new Error('Store name cannot be empty'); } try { await this.goIfNotThere(data.subUrls.frontend.vendorDetails(helpers.slugify(storeName)), 'networkidle'); } catch (error) { throw new Error(`Failed to navigate to store: ${storeName}. ${error.message}`); } } // ... other navigation methods ... // Order processing methods // ------------------------ /** * Places an order with the specified payment method. * @param paymentMethod The payment method to use. * @param getOrderDetails Whether to return order details. * @param billingAddress Whether to add a billing address. * @param shippingAddress Whether to add a shipping address. * @returns The order number or order details object. */ async placeOrder( paymentMethod: 'bank' | 'check' | 'cod' | 'stripe' | 'stripeExpress' = 'bank', getOrderDetails = false, billingAddress = false, shippingAddress = false ): Promise<string | object> { // ... implementation ... } // ... other methods ... }This structure provides better organization, documentation, and type safety.
tests/pw/pages/settingsPage.ts (2)
Line range hint
272-286: LGTM! Consider adding error handling.The changes to
setDokanMenuManagerSettingsimprove its flexibility by accepting an array of menu names instead of a hardcoded list. This allows for dynamic configuration of menu items, which is a good improvement.Consider adding error handling for cases where a menu item in the
menusarray doesn't have a corresponding switcher. This could be done by checking if the switcher exists before trying to enable it:async setDokanMenuManagerSettings(menus: string[]) { await this.goToDokanSettings(); await this.click(settingsAdmin.menus.menuManager); // menuManager Settings for (const menu of menus) { - await this.enableSwitcher(settingsAdmin.menuManager.menuSwitcher(menu)); + const switcher = settingsAdmin.menuManager.menuSwitcher(menu); + if (await this.isVisible(switcher)) { + await this.enableSwitcher(switcher); + } else { + console.warn(`No switcher found for menu: ${menu}`); + } } // save settings await this.clickAndWaitForResponseAndLoadState(data.subUrls.ajax, settingsAdmin.menuManager.menuManagerSaveChanges); for (const menu of menus) { - await this.toHaveBackgroundColor(settingsAdmin.menuManager.menuSwitcher(menu) + '//span', 'rgb(0, 144, 255)'); + const switcher = settingsAdmin.menuManager.menuSwitcher(menu); + if (await this.isVisible(switcher)) { + await this.toHaveBackgroundColor(switcher + '//span', 'rgb(0, 144, 255)'); + } } }This change will make the method more robust by handling potential mismatches between the input array and available switchers.
Line range hint
1-1024: Consider applying similar flexibility to other setting methods.The improvement made to
setDokanMenuManagerSettingsby accepting an array of menu names could potentially be applied to other similar methods in this class. This would increase the overall flexibility and reusability of theSettingsPageclass.In future refactoring efforts, consider reviewing other methods in this class that use hardcoded lists or specific types. Applying a similar pattern of accepting arrays or more generic types could make the entire class more adaptable to changes in the Dokan settings structure.
tests/pw/utils/dbData.ts (1)
1344-1344: Consider removing the redundantemptySideBarsWidgetsproperty.A new property
emptySideBarsWidgetshas been added with an emptywp_inactive_widgetsarray. This seems redundant as it's just an empty array and doesn't provide any additional functionality.Consider removing this property if it's not used elsewhere in the codebase. If it is needed, please add a comment explaining its purpose.
Run the following script to check for any usage of
emptySideBarsWidgetsin the codebase:#!/bin/bash # Search for usage of emptySideBarsWidgets in the codebase rg --type js --type ts "emptySideBarsWidgets"tests/pw/pages/basePage.ts (1)
817-821: LGTM! Consider adding a JSDoc comment for consistency.The new
selectByValueAndWaitForResponseAndLoadStatemethod is well-implemented and consistent with other similar methods in the class. It effectively combines selecting an option, waiting for a response, and waiting for the load state.For consistency with other methods in this class, consider adding a JSDoc comment to describe the method's purpose, parameters, and return value. For example:
/** * Selects an option by value, waits for a specific response, and ensures the page has finished loading. * @param subUrl - The sub-URL to wait for in the response. * @param selector - The selector for the dropdown element. * @param value - The value to select in the dropdown. * @param code - The expected status code of the response (default: 200). * @returns A Promise that resolves to the Response object. */tests/pw/utils/testData.ts (1)
1966-1988: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for the commented-out menu item.The addition of the
menusarray to themenuManagerobject is a good enhancement. It provides a comprehensive list of vendor dashboard functionalities, which will improve the menu management system.Consider adding a comment explaining why the 'Subscription' menu item is commented out. This will help other developers understand if it's a work in progress or if there's a specific reason for its exclusion.
// 'Subscription', +// TODO: Uncomment when subscription feature is ready
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (14)
- tests/pw/pages/basePage.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/pages/customerPage.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/pages/privacyPolicyPage.ts (4 hunks)
- tests/pw/pages/selectors.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/pages/settingsPage.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/pages/singleStorePage.ts (3 hunks)
- tests/pw/pages/storeListingPage.ts (5 hunks)
- tests/pw/pages/withdrawsPage.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/tests/e2e/privacyPolicy.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/tests/e2e/productAdvertising.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/tests/e2e/settings.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/tests/e2e/singleStore.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/utils/dbData.ts (3 hunks)
- tests/pw/utils/testData.ts (1 hunks)
Additional context used
Biome
tests/pw/pages/privacyPolicyPage.ts
[error] 12-14: This constructor is unnecessary.
Unsafe fix: Remove the unnecessary constructor.
(lint/complexity/noUselessConstructor)
Additional comments not posted (19)
tests/pw/tests/e2e/singleStore.spec.ts (1)
38-40: Approved: Test case activation enhances coverage. Clarification needed on privacy policy testing.The activation of this test case for store terms and conditions is a positive step towards improving the testing framework. However, I have a few points to discuss:
The PR objectives mention adding privacy policy tests, but this test seems to focus on terms and conditions. Could you clarify if this test is intended to cover privacy policy aspects as well, or if there are plans to add separate privacy policy tests?
If privacy policy testing is a separate concern, consider adding specific test cases for it to fully meet the PR objectives.
To ensure we're not missing any privacy policy related tests, let's check the entire test suite:
Verification successful
Verified: Privacy policy related tests are present in the test suite.
The search confirmed that there are existing privacy policy tests in the following files:
tests/pw/tests/e2e/privacyPolicy.spec.tstests/pw/tests/e2e/settings.spec.tsThis ensures that the PR's focus on activating and adding relevant tests aligns with the existing testing framework.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for privacy policy related tests in the test suite # Test: Search for privacy policy related test cases echo "Searching for privacy policy related tests:" rg --type typescript 'test\(.*privacy policy' tests/Length of output: 186
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for privacy policy related tests in the test suite # Adjusted Test: Search for privacy policy related test cases without specifying type echo "Searching for privacy policy related tests:" rg 'test\(.*privacy policy' tests/Length of output: 570
tests/pw/tests/e2e/privacyPolicy.spec.ts (3)
Line range hint
1-46: Summary: Improvements to Privacy Policy & Store Contact form test suiteThe changes made to this test suite are generally positive:
- Activation of previously skipped tests
- Addition of cleanup steps in the
afterAllhook- Removal of unused variables
These changes align with good testing practices and should improve the overall quality and reliability of the test suite. Please ensure all suggested verifications are performed to confirm the changes don't introduce any unintended side effects.
23-23: Approval: Test environment cleanupThe addition of
await dbUtils.setOptionValue('sidebars_widgets', dbData.widget.emptySideBarsWidgets);in theafterAllhook is a good practice for cleaning up the test environment.Please verify:
- Is this cleanup necessary for all tests in the suite, or is it specific to certain tests?
- Are there any other options or states that should be reset after the tests?
You can run the following command to check for other places where 'sidebars_widgets' is being set or used:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for other occurrences of 'sidebars_widgets' in the test files rg --type typescript 'sidebars_widgets' tests/pw/tests/e2e/
8-8: Approval: Test suite activationThe change from
test.describe.skiptotest.describeactivates the previously skipped test suite, which is a positive step towards increasing test coverage.Please verify that:
- All tests in this suite are ready to be run.
- There are no outstanding issues that previously necessitated skipping these tests.
- The test environment is properly set up to support these tests.
You can run the following command to check if there are any remaining skipped tests or TODOs in this file:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for skipped tests or TODOs in the privacyPolicy.spec.ts file rg --type typescript '(test\.skip|TODO)' tests/pw/tests/e2e/privacyPolicy.spec.tstests/pw/pages/singleStorePage.ts (4)
69-69: LGTM! Consistent improvement.The change from
goIfNotTheretogotoSingleStoreis consistent with the improvements made in other methods. This enhances the overall consistency of the test suite.
77-77: LGTM! Consistent improvement.The change from
goIfNotTheretogotoSingleStoremaintains consistency with the improvements made in other methods. This enhances the overall reliability of the test suite.
89-89: LGTM! Consistent improvement.The change from
goIfNotTheretogotoSingleStorealigns with the improvements made in other methods. This contributes to a more consistent and maintainable test suite.
Line range hint
1-105: Overall, the changes improve test suite consistency and flexibility.The modifications across all methods in this file follow a consistent pattern:
- Updating method signatures to include a
storeNameparameter.- Replacing
goIfNotTherewithgotoSingleStore.These changes enhance the test suite's flexibility by allowing easier testing of different stores. The consistent use of
gotoSingleStorelikely improves navigation reliability in tests.A few minor suggestions have been made to further improve code clarity and type safety. Consider implementing these suggestions to make the test suite even more robust and maintainable.
tests/pw/tests/e2e/productAdvertising.spec.ts (3)
89-95: Appropriate use oftest.slow()The addition of
test.slow()is a good practice for this test. It acknowledges that this particular test may take longer to execute due to its multiple steps (creating a product, buying advertising, updating order status, and asserting the result). This change helps prevent potential timeout issues and improves the reliability of the test suite.
97-103: Consistent use oftest.slow()The addition of
test.slow()here is consistent with the previous test and equally appropriate. This test involves creating a bookable product, which may be more complex and time-consuming than a simple product. The change helps ensure the test has sufficient time to complete all its steps without timing out.
Line range hint
89-111: Overall assessment of changesThe changes made to this file are consistent and appropriate. Adding
test.slow()to these three vendor tests acknowledges their potentially longer execution times due to complex operations like creating products, buying advertising, and verifying results. This improvement enhances the reliability of the test suite by reducing the likelihood of timeout-related failures.The changes align well with the PR objectives of enhancing the testing framework and ensuring proper functionality. They contribute to a more robust automation suite for privacy policy tests (and related e-commerce functionalities).
Consider the earlier suggestion about extracting the
test.slow()configuration for improved maintainability. Otherwise, these changes are ready for approval.tests/pw/tests/e2e/settings.spec.ts (1)
60-60: LGTM! Consider verifying data structure usage.The change from
data.dokanSettings.menuManagertodata.dokanSettings.menuManager.menuslooks good. It appears to be a refinement in the test to be more specific about what's being set in the Dokan menu manager settings.To ensure consistency across the codebase:
- Verify that this change in data structure is reflected in other parts of the codebase where
data.dokanSettings.menuManagermight be used.- Update any relevant documentation to reflect this change in the data structure.
You can use the following script to check for other occurrences of
data.dokanSettings.menuManager:If there are any matches, consider updating them to use
data.dokanSettings.menuManager.menusif appropriate.tests/pw/pages/storeListingPage.ts (3)
24-24: Improved page loading strategyThe change from
goIfNotTheretogotoUntilNetworkidleis a good improvement. This modification ensures that the page is fully loaded before proceeding, which can lead to more reliable and consistent test results.
80-80: Consistent navigation logicThe change to use
goToStoreList()instead of conditional navigation is a good improvement. This modification aligns with changes in other methods, promoting consistency throughout the class. It simplifies the navigation logic and makes the code more maintainable.
Line range hint
1-168: Overall improvements enhance test suite reliability and maintainabilityThe changes made to this file consistently improve the navigation logic across multiple methods by using
goToStoreList(). This standardization enhances the maintainability and readability of the test suite. The modifications, such as waiting for network idle states and adding verification steps, also contribute to increased reliability of the tests.These improvements align well with best practices for test automation and will likely result in more stable and consistent test runs. The suggestions provided for error handling and code organization, if implemented, would further enhance the robustness of these tests.
Great job on these improvements! They significantly contribute to the overall quality of the test suite.
tests/pw/pages/customerPage.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-594: Overall, good addition with room for improvement.The addition of the
gotoSingleStoremethod is a positive change that extends the functionality of theCustomerPageclass. However, as the class grows, consider implementing the suggested improvements to enhance code organization, documentation, and maintainability. These changes will make the code more robust and easier for other developers to understand and work with in the future.tests/pw/utils/dbData.ts (2)
1330-1334: Verify the impact of widget removal fromwp_inactive_widgetsandsidebar-store.The changes in the widget configuration might affect the site's user interface:
wp_inactive_widgetsarray has been emptied.sidebar-storearray now only contains 'dokan-store-contact-widget-2'.Please confirm if these changes are intentional and consider the following:
- Will the removal of widgets from
wp_inactive_widgetsaffect any functionality?- Is the removal of 'dokan-category-menu-2' and 'dokan-store-location-2' from
sidebar-storeintended?- How will these changes impact the store's sidebar display?
Run the following script to check for any usage of the removed widgets in the codebase:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usage of removed widgets in the codebase rg --type php --type js --type ts "dokan-category-menu-2|dokan-store-location-2"
756-756: Verify the intention behind changingprivacy_pageto an empty string.The
privacy_pageproperty inprivacyPolicySettingshas been changed from '2' to an empty string. This modification might affect the privacy policy functionality.Please confirm if this change is intentional and consider the following:
- Does the system handle an empty
privacy_pagevalue correctly?- Are there any parts of the code that expect a valid page ID for the privacy policy?
- Could this change potentially break any privacy policy-related features?
Run the following script to check for any usage of
privacy_pagein the codebase:Verification successful
Change to
privacy_pageVerified as SafeNo active references to
privacy_pagewere found in the codebase. Updating its value to an empty string does not impact the current functionality.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for usage of privacy_page in the codebase rg --type php --type js --type ts "privacy_page"Length of output: 336
tests/pw/utils/testData.ts (1)
1966-1988: Summary: Good addition to enhance menu management.The changes made to this file are focused and beneficial. The new
menusarray in themenuManagerobject provides a comprehensive list of vendor dashboard functionalities, which will improve the overall menu management system. The change is well-isolated and doesn't introduce any apparent issues to the existing code structure.
All Submissions:
Changes proposed in this Pull Request:
Related Pull Request(s)
Closes
How to test the changes in this Pull Request:
Changelog entry
Title
Detailed Description of the pull request. What was previous behaviour
and what will be changed in this PR.
Before Changes
Describe the issue before changes with screenshots(s).
After Changes
Describe the issue after changes with screenshot(s).
Feature Video (optional)
Link of detailed video if this PR is for a feature.
PR Self Review Checklist:
FOR PR REVIEWER ONLY:
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Refactor
PrivacyPolicyPageandStoreListingPageclasses.