test(pager): add pager UI E2E test case #29
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes involve modifications to the configuration settings in Changes
Poem
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
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (16)
tests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/basic-usage-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/goto-hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/mini-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/mini-disabled-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/next-hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/page-item-hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/pager-complete-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/pager-disabled-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/pager-fixed-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/pager-number-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/pager-simple-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/pager-simplest-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/popper-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/popper-item-hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/prev-hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/sizes-hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.png
Files selected for processing (2)
- src/config.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (2)
tests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts (2)
69-87: Comprehensive pagination mode testsYour tests for different pagination modes are thorough and well-structured, ensuring each mode is properly validated for visual correctness. This enhances the robustness of the UI testing coverage.
77-86: Verify the correctness of button indices in pagination mode testsIn the pagination mode tests, you're clicking on radio buttons using
.first()and.nth()methods. Please ensure that the indices correspond to the intended pagination modes, as Playwright'snth()method is zero-based. Verifying this will help prevent any unintended behavior during the tests.You can run the following script to list the radio button labels and their indices to confirm they match:
Verification successful
Button indices in pagination mode tests are correct
After thorough verification, I can confirm that the button indices in the pagination mode tests are correct and correspond to the intended pagination modes. The test file 'tests/pager/xdesign.spec.ts' shows the following sequence of button clicks:
btn.first().click()- Selects the first radio button (index 0)btn.nth(1).click()- Selects the second radio button (index 1)btn.nth(2).click()- Selects the third radio button (index 2)btn.nth(3).click()- Selects the fourth radio button (index 3)btn.nth(4).click()- Selects the fifth radio button (index 4)This sequence correctly uses Playwright's zero-based indexing for the
nth()method. The tests appear to be clicking through different pager modes (number, simple, complete, fixed, simplest) in order, as evidenced by the screenshot names in the expectations.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: List radio button labels with their indices to verify correct ordering. # Test: Extract and display radio button texts with indices. # Expected: Index and corresponding label for each radio button. rg --type ts 'demo.locator\(.tiny-radio-button.\)' -A 2 | grep 'locator' | nlLength of output: 147
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: List radio button labels with their indices to verify correct ordering. # Search for radio button definitions and process the output rg --type ts 'demo\.locator\(\.tiny-radio-button\)' -A 2 | rg 'locator\(' | awk '{print NR-1 ": " $0}'Length of output: 104
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for any mentions of radio buttons or pager in test files # Broad search for 'radio' or 'pager' in test files echo "Searching for 'radio' or 'pager' in test files:" rg -i -t ts '(radio|pager)' tests/ # If the above search yields results, we'll search for specific button click actions echo -e "\nSearching for button click actions:" rg -i -t ts '(btn|button).*click\(' tests/Length of output: 2533
| maxDiffPixelRatio: 0.02, | ||
| threshold: 0, | ||
| maxDiffPixels: 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Possible conflict in toHaveScreenshot configuration settings
The toHaveScreenshot configuration sets maxDiffPixelRatio to 0.02, allowing up to 2% pixel difference in screenshots. However, both threshold and maxDiffPixels are set to 0, which effectively disallows any pixel differences. This could lead to unexpected test failures or confusion about the allowed variance in screenshot comparisons. Please review and adjust these settings to ensure they align with your intended tolerance for visual differences.
| const item = demo.locator('.tiny-pager__pages li').filter({ hasText: '20' }) | ||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await prev.hover() | ||
| await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('page-item-hover.png') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct the hover target from prev to item
In this section, you intend to hover over a specific page item (item) and capture a screenshot named 'page-item-hover.png'. However, the code is incorrectly hovering over prev again instead of item. This will result in capturing the wrong hover state.
Apply this diff to fix the hover target:
- await prev.hover()
+ await item.hover()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.
| const item = demo.locator('.tiny-pager__pages li').filter({ hasText: '20' }) | |
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | |
| await prev.hover() | |
| await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('page-item-hover.png') | |
| const item = demo.locator('.tiny-pager__pages li').filter({ hasText: '20' }) | |
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | |
| await item.hover() | |
| await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('page-item-hover.png') |
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
Bug Fixes