test(numeric): add numeric ui-test #56
Conversation
WalkthroughA new test suite has been added for the numeric input component in the file Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
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: 0
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
tests/numeric/xdesign.spec.ts (6)
3-3: Consider using English for the test suite name.The test suite name is currently in Chinese. For better international collaboration and consistency, consider using English for the test suite name. For example:
test.describe('Numeric Input XDesign Specification', () => {
4-13: LGTM: Basic usage test is well-structured.The test case effectively covers the basic functionality of the numeric input component. It includes error handling, interaction simulation, and visual comparison.
Consider adding an assertion to verify the numeric value after clicking the increase button. For example:
await expect(num.locator('input')).toHaveValue('1')This would ensure both visual and functional correctness.
14-20: LGTM: Disabled state test is appropriate.The test case correctly verifies the disabled state of the numeric input component without attempting interactions.
Consider adding an assertion to verify that the component is actually disabled:
await expect(num.locator('input')).toBeDisabled()This would provide an additional functional check alongside the visual comparison.
21-27: LGTM with suggestions: Size test could be more comprehensive.The test case correctly verifies the visual appearance of different size configurations. However, consider the following improvements:
- Add assertions to verify the presence of different size classes:
await expect(num.locator('.tiny-numeric--medium')).toBeVisible() await expect(num.locator('.tiny-numeric--small')).toBeVisible() await expect(num.locator('.tiny-numeric--mini')).toBeVisible()
- Consider separate screenshots for each size to make debugging easier if a specific size fails the test.
These changes would provide more granular testing and easier troubleshooting.
28-34: LGTM with suggestions: Unit test could be more specific.The test case correctly verifies the visual appearance of the numeric input with units. However, consider the following improvements:
- Add an assertion to verify the presence of the unit:
await expect(num.locator('.tiny-numeric__unit')).toBeVisible()
- If possible, add an assertion to check the text content of the unit:
await expect(num.locator('.tiny-numeric__unit')).toHaveText('kg')
- Consider testing different units if the component supports multiple unit types.
These changes would provide more specific testing of the unit feature beyond just visual comparison.
1-35: Overall: Good test coverage with room for improvement.The test file provides a solid foundation for UI testing of the numeric input component. It covers key aspects such as basic usage, disabled state, size variations, and unit display. The consistent use of screenshot comparisons and error handling is commendable.
To further enhance the test suite, consider adding the following:
- Negative test cases (e.g., invalid input, out-of-range values).
- Edge case scenarios (e.g., minimum/maximum values, decimal inputs if supported).
- Keyboard interaction tests (e.g., using arrow keys to increment/decrement).
- More specific assertions alongside screenshot comparisons, as suggested in individual test reviews.
- Accessibility tests (e.g., checking ARIA attributes, keyboard navigation).
These additions would provide a more comprehensive test suite, ensuring robustness across various use cases and improving accessibility compliance.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (4)
tests/numeric/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/basic-usage-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/numeric/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/dynamic-disabled-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/numeric/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/numeric-size-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/numeric/xdesign.spec.ts-snapshots/unit-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.png
Files selected for processing (1)
- tests/numeric/xdesign.spec.ts (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (1)
tests/numeric/xdesign.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and necessary.The import statement is appropriate for Playwright tests, importing only the necessary functions.
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