test(e2e): add split UI e2e test #67
Conversation
|
Important Review skippedReview was skipped due to path filters ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (6)
CodeRabbit blocks several paths by default. You can override this behavior by explicitly including those paths in the path filters. For example, including You can disable this status message by setting the WalkthroughThe changes introduce a new Playwright test file, Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
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: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
tests/split/xdesign.spec.ts (4)
4-10: LGTM: Well-structured test case with good practices.The test case for the default usage of the split component is well-implemented. It includes error handling, specific locators, and viewport checks before taking screenshots.
Consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of this test case for better readability and maintainability.
12-18: LGTM: Consistent test structure with good practices.The test case for the split mode follows the same structure and good practices as the previous test.
Consider extracting the common test setup (error handling, navigation, and locator creation) into a separate function to reduce code duplication across all test cases. This would improve maintainability and readability. For example:
async function setupTest(page, url, selector) { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) await page.goto(url) const demo = page.locator(selector) await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() return demo } // Usage in test: const demo = await setupTest(page, 'split#split-mode', '#split-mode .pc-demo') await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('split-mode.png')
28-39: LGTM: Well-implemented test with interaction.This test case effectively captures both the initial state and the hover state of the horizontal collapse feature. The additional interaction adds value to the test suite.
Consider adding a short wait time after the hover action before taking the screenshot. This ensures that any animations or transitions have completed:
await triggerDom.hover() await page.waitForTimeout(500) // Adjust the timeout as needed await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('hover.png')
41-48: LGTM: Consistent test structure for three-area configuration.The test case for the three-area configuration maintains the same structure and good practices as the previous tests.
Consider enhancing the test suite with the following suggestions:
- Add assertions to verify specific elements or attributes of the split component in each test case. This would provide more robust testing beyond just visual comparisons.
- Implement parametrized tests for similar scenarios to reduce code duplication and improve maintainability.
- Consider adding tests for edge cases, such as minimum/maximum sizes of split areas or rapid resizing actions.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (6)
tests/split/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/basic-usage-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/split/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/horizontal-collapse-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/split/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/split/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/nested-use-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/split/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/split-mode-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/split/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/three-areas-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.png
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- tests/split/xdesign.spec.ts (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
tests/split/xdesign.spec.ts (3)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and necessary.The import statement is appropriate for Playwright tests, importing only the necessary functions.
20-26: LGTM: Consistent test structure maintained.The test case for nested usage maintains the same structure and good practices as the previous tests.
As mentioned earlier, consider refactoring the common setup code to reduce duplication across test cases.
1-48: Overall: Well-structured and comprehensive test suite for the split component.This test suite provides good coverage of the split component's functionality using UI screenshots. The consistent structure across test cases and the implementation of good practices such as error handling and viewport checks are commendable.
To further improve the test suite, consider the following suggestions:
- Refactor common setup code into a separate function to reduce duplication.
- Add brief comments explaining the purpose of each test case.
- Implement parametrized tests for similar scenarios.
- Enhance tests with specific assertions beyond visual comparisons.
- Add tests for edge cases and more complex interactions.
These improvements will enhance the maintainability, readability, and robustness of the test suite.
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