test(select): Add UI test cases for select component #62
Conversation
WalkthroughA comprehensive set of automated UI tests has been introduced for the Changes
Suggested reviewers
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: 50
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (102)
tests/select/size.spec.ts (1)
1-13: Improve overall test structure and coverage.To enhance the test suite, consider implementing the following:
Add a
test.beforeEach()for common setup:test.beforeEach(async ({ page }) => { await page.goto('http://your-base-url/select#size'); });Define constants for selectors and URLs:
const SELECT_DEMO_SELECTOR = '#size .pc-demo'; const SELECT_URL = 'http://your-base-url/select#size';Add more test cases to cover different scenarios:
- Test all size variations (small, medium, large)
- Test disabled state
- Test with different option counts
- Test keyboard navigation
Implement custom expect functions for common assertions:
expect.extend({ async toHaveCorrectSize(selectElement, expectedSize) { const actualSize = await selectElement.evaluate((el) => window.getComputedStyle(el).getPropertyValue('height') ); return { pass: actualSize === expectedSize, message: () => `Expected ${actualSize} to be ${expectedSize}`, }; }, });Consider adding accessibility tests:
await expect(selectElement).toHaveAttribute('aria-haspopup', 'listbox');These improvements will make your tests more robust, maintainable, and comprehensive.
tests/select/tag-type.spec.ts (2)
5-11: Approve implementation and suggest additional functional tests.The current implementation is good:
- Error handling for page errors is a great practice.
- Navigation and element location are correctly implemented.
- Viewport check ensures the element is visible before screenshot comparison.
- Screenshot comparison is a valid way to test UI consistency.
However, to improve test coverage:
Consider adding functional tests to verify the select component's behavior:
- Test opening and closing the select dropdown.
- Verify selection of options.
- Check if the selected value is correctly displayed.
Example:
// After the existing screenshot test test('Functional test for select component', async ({ page }) => { await page.goto('select#tag-type') const select = page.locator('#tag-type .select-component') // Open dropdown await select.click() await expect(page.locator('.select-dropdown')).toBeVisible() // Select an option await page.locator('.select-option').nth(1).click() // Verify selected value await expect(select).toHaveText('Selected Option') })
1-13: Summary of review for tests/select/tag-type.spec.tsOverall, this is a good start for testing the select component. The test file structure is correct, and the screenshot comparison is a valid approach for UI testing. However, there are several areas for improvement:
- Consider using English for test descriptions to facilitate international collaboration.
- Add more test cases to cover different aspects of the select component, including functional tests.
- Improve the screenshot comparison process by using more descriptive names and documenting the baseline screenshot generation process.
Addressing these points will significantly enhance the test coverage and maintainability of the select component tests.
tests/select/copy-multi.spec.ts (2)
1-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.While the current description is clear, using English for test descriptions can improve international collaboration and maintainability. Consider translating the test suite description to English.
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
1-14: Overall assessment and next stepsThe test provides a good foundation for testing the select component, but there's room for improvement:
- Enhance test coverage by adding more specific checks and interactions with the select component.
- Improve the robustness of screenshot comparisons.
- Consider adding more test cases to cover different scenarios and edge cases.
Next steps:
- Implement the suggested improvements in this test file.
- Create additional test cases for different select component configurations (e.g., single select, disabled state, error state).
- Ensure all critical user interactions are covered in the test suite.
To improve the overall test architecture, consider:
- Creating a shared setup function for common operations like navigation and error handling.
- Implementing custom test fixtures for the select component to reduce code duplication across tests.
- Organizing tests into logical groups using
test.describe.parallel()for better structure and potential performance improvements.tests/select/copy-single.spec.ts (2)
1-3: Consider using English for the test suite description.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, it's recommended to use English for all code comments and descriptions.
Consider changing the description to English:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-7: Improve test case naming and verify URL navigation.
- The test case name is in Chinese. Consider using English for better readability and consistency.
- The URL navigation uses a fragment identifier. Ensure this is the correct way to navigate to the specific component demo in your application.
Consider the following changes:
- test('单选可复制--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { + test('Single select with copy functionality - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) - await page.goto('select#copy-single') + await page.goto('http://your-base-url/select#copy-single')Replace 'http://your-base-url/' with the actual base URL of your application.
tests/select/binding-obj.spec.ts (1)
1-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.While the current description in Chinese is clear for Chinese-speaking developers, using English for test descriptions would improve international collaboration and maintainability.
Consider changing the test suite description to English:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('select component xdesign specifications', () => {tests/select/optimization.spec.ts (2)
3-3: Consider enhancing the test suite structure and description.While the test suite structure follows Playwright's conventions, there are a couple of points to consider:
- The description is in Chinese. For better international collaboration, consider using English or providing bilingual descriptions.
- There's only one test case in this suite. Consider adding more test cases to cover different scenarios and improve test coverage.
Here's a suggestion for improving the test suite description:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specifications (select 组件xdesign规范)', () => {
1-14: Overall suggestions for improving the test suiteWhile this test file provides a good starting point for testing the select component, there are several areas where it can be improved:
- Add more test cases to cover different scenarios of the select component's behavior.
- Implement more specific assertions to verify the "automatic clearing of non-matching values" behavior.
- Consider adding tests for edge cases and error scenarios.
- Use more descriptive and consistent naming for test cases (preferably in English for better international collaboration).
- Implement proper test isolation by resetting the component state between tests if needed.
To improve the overall testing architecture:
- Consider creating a
beforeEachhook to set up common test conditions:test.beforeEach(async ({ page }) => { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) await page.goto('select#optimization') // Add any other common setup steps })
Create helper functions for common operations on the select component to improve code reusability across tests.
If there are multiple test files for the select component, consider creating a base test file with common setup and helper functions that other test files can extend.
tests/select/native-properties.spec.ts (4)
1-3: Consider using English for test suite description.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For consistency and to improve readability for non-Chinese speaking developers, consider using English for all test descriptions.
Suggested change:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-4: Consider using English for test case description.The test case description is currently in Chinese. For consistency and to improve readability for non-Chinese speaking developers, consider using English for all test descriptions.
Suggested change:
-test('多选可复制--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test('Multi-select copyable - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
11-12: Good practice: Viewport check before screenshot.Checking if the demo is in the viewport before taking a screenshot is a good practice. It ensures that the element is visible and reduces the chance of false negatives in the screenshot comparison.
Consider using a more specific name for the baseline image.
The current baseline image name 'default.png' is very generic. This might cause conflicts if multiple tests use the same name.
Consider using a more specific name that includes the component and test case, for example:
-await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default.png') +await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('select-multi-select-copyable.png')Recommendation: Add more specific assertions.
While screenshot comparison is useful for detecting visual changes, it's also brittle and may lead to false positives if the UI changes frequently. Consider adding more specific assertions to make the test more robust.
For example:
// Check if the select element is visible await expect(select).toBeVisible(); // Check if the select element has the expected number of options const options = select.locator('option'); await expect(options).toHaveCount(expectedCount); // Check if the first option has the expected text await expect(options.first()).toHaveText(expectedFirstOptionText); // Then proceed with the screenshot comparison await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('select-multi-select-copyable.png');These additional assertions will help pinpoint the exact issue if the test fails, rather than just indicating that the screenshot doesn't match.
1-14: Summary: Good start, but room for improvementThis new test file for the select component is a good start for UI testing. However, there are several areas where it can be improved:
- Use English for all test descriptions to ensure consistency and readability.
- Refactor the navigation code to avoid selector redundancy.
- Use more specific names for baseline images to prevent conflicts.
- Add more specific assertions to make the test more robust and easier to debug.
Additionally, consider the following next steps:
- Add more test cases to cover different scenarios and edge cases for the select component.
- Implement a consistent naming convention for test files, test suites, and test cases across the project.
- Document the purpose and expected behavior of these UI tests in the project's testing documentation.
tests/select/input-box-type.spec.ts (2)
1-3: Consider using English for the test suite title.The test suite title is currently in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, it's recommended to use English for test descriptions.
Consider changing the title to something like:
test.describe('Select Component XDesign Specification', () => {
4-6: Improve test case title and add URL comment.
- The test case title is in Chinese. Consider using English for better international collaboration.
- The URL structure in the
page.goto()call is not immediately clear. Adding a comment to explain the URL structure would improve readability.Consider the following changes:
- Change the test case title:
test('Input Box Type - UI Screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
- Add a comment above the
page.goto()call:// Navigate to the select component demo page, focusing on the input box type section await page.goto('select#input-box-type')tests/select/manual-focus-blur.spec.ts (4)
1-3: Consider improving the test suite declaration.The test suite description is in Chinese, which may hinder international collaboration. Consider using English for better maintainability and consistency across the project. Additionally, it's a good practice to use PascalCase or kebab-case for test suite names.
Consider applying this change:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('SelectComponentXDesignSpecification', () => {
4-6: Improve test case description and navigation.
- The test case description is in Chinese. Consider using English for better maintainability and consistency across the project.
- The navigation URL format is unusual. It might be more robust to use a full URL or a relative path.
Consider applying these changes:
- test('手动聚焦失焦--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { + test('Manual focus and blur - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) - await page.goto('select#manual-focus-blur') + await page.goto('/select#manual-focus-blur')
8-11: LGTM, but consider adding focus and blur tests.The element selection and viewport check are implemented correctly. However, the test doesn't actually verify the manual focus and blur functionality as implied by the test name.
Consider adding steps to test the focus and blur functionality:
// Focus the select element await select.focus(); await expect(select).toBeFocused(); // Blur the select element await select.evaluate(el => el.blur()); await expect(select).not.toBeFocused();
1-14: Overall assessment: Good start, but needs improvements.This test provides a good foundation for testing the select component, but it falls short of fully testing the manual focus and blur functionality as implied by its name. Here's a summary of suggested improvements:
- Use English for test descriptions to improve international collaboration.
- Implement actual focus and blur tests using Playwright's focus and blur methods.
- Capture screenshots for different states (default, focused, blurred) with descriptive names.
- Consider adding more assertions to verify the component's behavior during focus and blur events.
To ensure comprehensive testing, consider creating additional test cases that cover different scenarios and edge cases for the select component. This might include testing keyboard navigation, option selection, and any custom behaviors specific to your implementation.
tests/select/automatic-dropdown.spec.ts (1)
1-14: Overall review: Good start, but needs expansionThis file provides a good foundation for testing the select component, but it falls short of the PR objectives to "Add UI test cases for select component". To fully meet these objectives and ensure comprehensive testing, consider the following next steps:
Expand the test suite to cover more scenarios:
- Opening and closing the dropdown
- Selecting options (single and multiple, if applicable)
- Keyboard navigation
- Disabled state behavior
- Any custom behaviors specific to your implementation
Implement proper setup and teardown methods to ensure a clean test environment for each test case.
Add more assertions to verify the component's behavior thoroughly.
Consider creating separate test files for different aspects of the select component (e.g., basic functionality, keyboard interaction, accessibility).
Ensure all test descriptions and comments are in English or bilingual for better maintainability and collaboration.
Add documentation comments explaining the purpose of the test suite and any specific setup requirements.
By addressing these points, you'll create a more robust and comprehensive test suite that better aligns with the PR objectives and ensures the reliability of the select component.
tests/select/clear-no-match-value.spec.ts (3)
3-3: Consider using English for the test suite description.While the current description accurately describes the purpose of the test suite, using English would improve readability for international collaboration. Consider keeping the Chinese description as a comment for reference.
Here's a suggested change:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => { + // Chinese: select 组件xdesign规范
4-4: Consider using English for the test case title.Similar to the test suite description, using English for the test case title would improve readability for international collaboration.
Here's a suggested change:
- test('自动清除不匹配的值--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { + test('Automatically clear non-matching values - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { + // Chinese: 自动清除不匹配的值--UI截图
1-14: Overall, good test structure with room for improvement.The test case is well-structured and follows Playwright best practices. However, consider the following improvements:
- Use English for test suite and test case descriptions to enhance international collaboration.
- Add more specific assertions to test the select component's behavior before performing the screenshot comparison.
- Consider adding more test cases to cover different scenarios, such as:
- Selecting a valid option
- Handling multiple selections (if applicable)
- Testing keyboard navigation
These enhancements will make the test suite more robust and comprehensive.
tests/select/slot-prefix.spec.ts (2)
3-3: Consider using English for the test suite description.While the current description '选择组件xdesign规范' is valid, using English for test descriptions can improve readability and collaboration in international teams.
Consider changing the description to something like:
test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-4: Consider using English for the test case title.While the current title '前缀插槽--UI截图' is valid, using English for test titles can improve readability and collaboration in international teams.
Consider changing the title to something like:
test('Prefix slot - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {tests/select/no-data-text.spec.ts (3)
1-3: Consider using English for test descriptionsThe test suite description is currently in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, consider using English for all test descriptions and comments.
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-6: Good error handling, but clarify URL structureThe error handling setup is a good practice. However, the URL structure ('select#no-data-text') is unclear. Consider using a more explicit URL or adding a comment to explain the URL structure.
- await page.goto('select#no-data-text') + // Navigate to the select component demo page with the no-data-text example + await page.goto('/components/select#no-data-text')
8-12: Good visual checks, consider adding functional assertionsThe viewport check and screenshot capture are good for visual testing. However, consider adding functional assertions to verify the presence and content of the "no data" text.
Add assertions to check for the "no data" text:
const noDataText = select.locator('.tiny-select__dropdown-empty'); await expect(noDataText).toBeVisible(); await expect(noDataText).toHaveText('No Data'); // Replace with the expected texttests/select/hide-drop.spec.ts (2)
1-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.While the current description "select 组件xdesign规范" is clear for Chinese speakers, using English for test descriptions can improve readability and collaboration for international teams.
Consider changing the test description to English, for example:
test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
8-10: Remove or use the 'wrap' locator.The 'wrap' locator is defined but not used in the test. To improve code cleanliness and avoid confusion:
Either remove the unused locator:
- const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap')Or, if it's intended for future use, consider adding a TODO comment explaining its purpose.
tests/select/cache-usage.spec.ts (3)
1-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, it's recommended to use English for test descriptions.
Consider changing the description to something like:
test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-6: Translate test title and clarify URL navigation.
- The test title is in Chinese. Consider translating it to English for better international collaboration.
- The URL navigation uses a relative path. It's good to ensure this is the intended behavior.
Consider the following changes:
- Translate the test title:
test('Automatic caching - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
- If the relative URL is intentional, you might want to add a comment explaining the base URL configuration to avoid confusion:
// Note: Base URL is configured in the Playwright config file await page.goto('select#cache-usage')
1-16: Overall assessment: Good foundation, room for improvementThis test provides a solid starting point for UI testing of the select component. However, there are several areas where it could be improved:
- Internationalization: Consider using English for test descriptions and titles.
- Explicit caching verification: Add assertions to specifically test the caching behavior mentioned in the test title.
- Clarity: Add comments to explain the purpose of certain actions, especially the screenshot comparison.
- Robustness: Include additional assertions to verify component state after interactions.
These improvements will enhance the test's effectiveness, clarity, and maintainability. Consider implementing these suggestions in a follow-up commit or PR.
As you continue to develop your test suite, consider the following architectural improvements:
- Create helper functions for common operations on the select component to reduce duplication in future tests.
- Set up a consistent naming convention for screenshot baselines.
- Consider implementing a custom expect matcher for select component states to make assertions more readable and reusable.
tests/select/clearable.spec.ts (5)
1-3: Consider using English for the test suite description.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For better maintainability and consistency across the project, especially if it's an international project, consider using English for all code comments and descriptions.
Here's a suggested change:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-4: Use English for the test case description.For consistency and better maintainability, especially in international projects, consider using English for all code comments and descriptions.
Here's a suggested change:
-test('可清除--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test('Clearable - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
8-11: LGTM! Consider adding a wait for visibility.The locators and viewport check look good. For added robustness, consider adding a wait for visibility before proceeding with interactions.
Here's a suggested addition:
await demo.waitFor({ state: 'visible' });This ensures that the demo is not only in the viewport but also visible before proceeding with the test.
12-16: LGTM! Consider adding steps to test clearable functionality.The screenshot captures and hover interaction look good. However, the test name suggests testing the clearable functionality, which is not currently covered.
Consider adding the following steps to test the clearable functionality:
- Select an option
- Verify the selected option is displayed
- Click the clear button
- Verify the selection is cleared
Here's a suggested implementation:
await select.click(); await page.click('text=Option 1'); await expect(select).toContainText('Option 1'); await select.locator('.tiny-select__clear').click(); await expect(select).not.toContainText('Option 1'); await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('cleared.png');This addition would make the test more comprehensive and align with its intended purpose.
1-17: Overall assessment: Good start, but needs improvementsThis test file provides a good foundation for testing the UI of the clearable select component. However, there are several areas where it can be improved:
- Use English for test descriptions and comments for better maintainability.
- Implement a more robust navigation method.
- Add a wait for visibility before interacting with elements.
- Expand the test to cover the actual clearable functionality.
These improvements will make the test more comprehensive, robust, and aligned with its intended purpose. Please consider implementing the suggested changes to enhance the overall quality of the test suite.
tests/select/memoize-usage.spec.ts (4)
1-3: Consider using English for test descriptions or adding translations.While the current description '组件xdesign规范' is clear for Chinese speakers, it may pose readability issues for non-Chinese speaking team members. Consider either using English for test descriptions or adding English translations alongside the Chinese text to improve global collaboration.
Example:
test.describe('select component xdesign specification (select 组件xdesign规范)', () => { // ... })
4-6: Good error handling, consider more robust navigation.The error listener setup is a good practice for catching unexpected errors during the test. However, the navigation method using a URL fragment might be brittle if the URL structure changes.
Consider using a more robust navigation method, such as:
await page.goto(page.url() + '#select/memoize-usage')This approach is more resilient to changes in the base URL structure.
8-13: Good element selection, consider additional assertion.The element selection using locators is specific and well-structured. The interaction with the select component is straightforward.
Consider adding an assertion to verify that the select component opened after clicking. For example:
await select.click() await expect(select.locator('.tiny-select-dropdown')).toBeVisible()This additional check ensures that the interaction had the expected effect before proceeding with the screenshot.
13-15: Good viewport check, consider more specific screenshot name.Checking if the element is in the viewport before taking a screenshot is a good practice. It ensures that the element is visible and ready for capture.
Consider using a more specific name for the screenshot to avoid potential overwriting if multiple tests use 'default.png'. For example:
await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('select-memoize-usage.png')This name clearly identifies which component and usage scenario the screenshot represents.
tests/select/slot-empty.spec.ts (2)
3-3: Consider adding an English translation for the test suite name.While the current name "select 组件xdesign规范" is descriptive, adding an English translation would improve readability for non-Chinese speakers and maintain consistency with international coding practices.
Consider updating the test suite description as follows:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select Component XDesign Specification (select 组件xdesign规范)', () => {
4-4: Consider adding an English translation for the test case name.While the current name "空数据插槽--UI截图" is descriptive, adding an English translation would improve readability for non-Chinese speakers and maintain consistency with international coding practices.
Consider updating the test case name as follows:
- test('空数据插槽--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { + test('Empty Data Slot - UI Screenshot (空数据插槽--UI截图)', async ({ page }) => {tests/select/show-alloption.spec.ts (2)
3-3: Consider using English for the test suite description.While the current description accurately describes the purpose of the test suite, using English would improve readability for international collaborators.
Consider changing the description to English:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-4: Consider using English for the test case description.While the current description accurately describes the purpose of the test case, using English would improve readability for international collaborators.
Consider changing the description to English:
-test('不显示全选--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test('Does not display "Select All" option - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {tests/select/searchable.spec.ts (4)
3-4: Consider improving test suite structure and naming conventions.
- The test suite description is in Chinese. For better international collaboration, consider using English for all test descriptions and comments.
- The test suite contains only one test case. Consider adding more test cases to cover different scenarios of the searchable functionality.
Suggested changes:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { - test('面板搜索--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test.describe('Select Component XDesign Specification', () => { + test('Panel Search - UI Screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
5-10: LGTM: Test setup is well-structured, with a minor suggestion.The test setup is good:
- Error listener is in place to catch unexpected errors.
- Navigation to the correct page is performed.
- Appropriate selectors are used for locating elements.
However, the URL might be incomplete. Consider using a base URL configuration in your Playwright setup.
Suggestion for improving the URL:
- await page.goto('select#searchable') + await page.goto('/components/select#searchable')Alternatively, set up a base URL in your Playwright configuration and use a relative path here.
12-17: Expand test coverage with additional interactions and assertions.The current test does a good job of basic visual regression testing:
- Checking if the demo is in the viewport.
- Taking screenshots of the default state and after opening the select component.
However, to thoroughly test the searchable functionality, consider adding more interactions and assertions:
- Test the search functionality:
await select.getByRole('textbox').fill('search term'); await expect(select.locator('.tiny-select-dropdown-item')).toHaveCount(expectedCount);- Verify selection after search:
await select.locator('.tiny-select-dropdown-item').first().click(); await expect(select.locator('.tiny-select-selection-item')).toHaveText('Expected Selected Value');- Test for no results scenario:
await select.getByRole('textbox').fill('nonexistent term'); await expect(select.locator('.tiny-select-dropdown-empty')).toBeVisible();- Take additional screenshots after these interactions to capture the visual state.
These additions will provide more comprehensive coverage of the searchable select component's functionality.
1-18: Good start, but expand test coverage and improve internationalization.This test file provides a solid foundation for testing the searchable select component, focusing on visual regression testing. However, there are several areas for improvement:
- Internationalization: Use English for test descriptions and comments to facilitate global collaboration.
- Test Coverage: Expand the test suite to include more scenarios that thoroughly exercise the searchable functionality.
- Interactions: Add more user interactions to test the component's behavior under various conditions.
- Assertions: Include additional assertions to verify the component's state and behavior after interactions.
Next steps:
- Implement the suggested changes and additions from previous comments.
- Consider breaking down the test into multiple, more focused test cases.
- Add comments explaining the purpose of each test case and any complex setup or assertions.
- Ensure consistent naming conventions across all test files in the project.
These improvements will significantly enhance the effectiveness and maintainability of your test suite.
tests/select/allow-create.spec.ts (3)
1-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For consistency and to improve readability for non-Chinese speaking developers, consider translating it to English.
Suggested change:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-6: Translate test case title and verify URL structure.
- The test case title is in Chinese. Consider translating it to English for consistency:
-test('面板搜索--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test('Panel search - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
- The URL structure in the
page.goto()call is unclear. Verify if this is the correct way to navigate to the desired page. If it's a fragment identifier, consider using a full URL:-await page.goto('select#allow-create') +await page.goto('http://your-base-url/path/to/page#allow-create')
8-13: Use more descriptive screenshot names.The current screenshot name 'default.png' is quite generic. Consider using a more descriptive name that includes the component and state being tested:
-await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default.png') +await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('select-allow-create-initial-state.png')This will make it easier to identify and manage screenshots, especially as the number of tests grows.
tests/select/popup-style-position.spec.ts (3)
1-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, it's recommended to use English for test descriptions.
Here's a suggested translation:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('select component xdesign specifications', () => {
4-10: Test setup looks good, consider using English for the test description.The test case setup, error handling, and navigation are well-implemented. However, for consistency and better international collaboration, consider using English for the test description as well.
Here's a suggested translation for the test description:
-test('弹框样式与定位--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test('Popup style and positioning - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
12-16: Screenshot assertions look good, consider more specific naming.The screenshot assertions are well-implemented, capturing the UI state before and after interaction. This is an effective way to verify UI changes.
Consider using more specific names for the screenshots to better indicate what they represent:
-await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default.png') +await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('select-initial-state.png') -await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('popup-style-position.png') +await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('select-popup-opened.png')tests/select/multiple-mix.spec.ts (4)
1-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.While the current description is clear, using English for test descriptions can improve collaboration in international teams and maintain consistency across the codebase.
Consider changing the test suite description to English:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-6: Improve test case description and URL format.
- The test case description should be in English for consistency and clarity.
- The URL format
select#multiple-mixseems unusual. It might be a shorthand, but it's not clear if this is a full URL or a fragment identifier.Consider the following changes:
- Change the test case description to English:
-test('仅显示--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test('UI screenshot - display only', async ({ page }) => {
- Verify the URL format:
-await page.goto('select#multiple-mix') +await page.goto('/path/to/select#multiple-mix')Replace
/path/to/with the actual path to the page containing the select component.
8-15: LGTM! Consider adding comments for clarity.The element selectors and initial assertions look good. The viewport check and initial screenshot are excellent practices for visual regression testing.
To improve readability, consider adding comments to explain the purpose of each selector:
// Select the demo container const demo = page.locator('#multiple-mix .pc-demo') // Select the first select component within the demo const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select').nth(0) // Select the suffix element of the select component const suffix = select.locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner') // Select the wrapper element const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') // Select the dropdown menu const menu = page.locator('body > .tiny-select-dropdown').nth(0)
1-20: Overall assessment: Good start, room for improvementThis test file provides a solid foundation for testing the select component's UI. However, there are several areas where it can be enhanced:
- Consistency: Use English for all test descriptions and comments to improve international collaboration.
- URL clarity: Ensure the URL used in
page.goto()is clear and complete.- Test coverage: Expand the test to include more interactions and specific assertions about the component's behavior.
- Documentation: Add comments to explain the purpose of selectors and test steps.
These improvements will make the test more robust, informative, and maintainable. Consider adding more test cases to cover different scenarios and edge cases for the select component.
As you continue to develop your test suite, consider the following architectural improvements:
- Create helper functions for common operations (e.g., opening the select, selecting an option) to reduce code duplication across tests.
- Implement a Page Object Model to encapsulate selectors and common interactions, making tests more maintainable.
- Set up visual regression testing tools to automatically compare screenshots and detect unexpected changes.
These enhancements will contribute to a more scalable and maintainable test suite as your project grows.
tests/select/filter-method.spec.ts (1)
1-3: Consider using English or bilingual descriptions for test suites.While the current description '选择组件xdesign规范' is clear for Chinese-speaking developers, it may pose challenges for international collaboration. Consider using English or providing bilingual descriptions to improve accessibility and maintainability of the test suite.
Example of a bilingual description:
test.describe('Select component xdesign specification (选择组件xdesign规范)', () => { // ... })tests/select/remote-method.spec.ts (3)
3-4: Consider using English for test descriptions and titles.While the current descriptions are clear, using English for test descriptions and titles would improve international collaboration and maintainability. Consider translating:
- "select 组件xdesign规范" to "Select Component XDesign Specification"
- "远程搜索--UI截图" to "Remote Search - UI Screenshot"
6-21: LGTM: Test steps are comprehensive, but could be enhanced.The test steps cover the basic functionality of the remote search feature and make good use of visual regression testing with screenshots. However, consider the following improvements:
Add assertions to verify the component's behavior, not just its appearance. For example:
- Check if the dropdown opens when clicked.
- Verify that the filter results are displayed after pressing Enter.
Consider adding a small delay after interactions to ensure the UI has updated before taking screenshots.
Test with actual search terms instead of just a space character to ensure the remote search functionality is working as expected.
Here's a suggested enhancement to the test case:
test('Remote Search - UI Screenshot', async ({ page }) => { // ... (existing setup code) await select.nth(0).click() await expect(select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-select__dropdown')).toBeVisible() await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('unfilter.png') const searchTerm = 'test' await select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-input__inner').fill(searchTerm) await select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-input__inner').press('Enter') // Add a small delay to ensure UI updates await page.waitForTimeout(500) const filteredOptions = select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-select-dropdown__item') await expect(filteredOptions).toHaveCount(await filteredOptions.count()) await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('filter.png') // Verify that filtered options contain the search term for (const option of await filteredOptions.all()) { await expect(option).toContainText(searchTerm, { ignoreCase: true }) } })
1-22: Good foundation for UI testing, with room for improvement.This test provides a solid foundation for UI testing of the select component's remote search functionality. The use of Playwright and visual regression testing with screenshots is commendable. However, to make this test more robust and informative, consider the following next steps:
- Implement more detailed assertions to verify the component's behavior, not just its appearance.
- Expand the test coverage to include edge cases and different search scenarios.
- Add more test cases to cover other aspects of the select component's functionality.
- Consider parameterizing the test to run with different input data.
- Implement proper error messages for failed assertions to aid in debugging.
These enhancements will significantly improve the test's ability to catch potential issues and provide more meaningful feedback during the development process.
tests/select/disabled.spec.ts (2)
1-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.While the current description accurately describes the test suite's purpose, using English for test descriptions can improve international collaboration and maintainability.
Consider changing the test description to English:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-13: Approve test setup and suggest English test title.The test setup, including error handling, navigation, and initial assertions, is well-structured. However, consider using English for the test title to improve readability and maintainability for international teams.
Consider changing the test title to English:
-test('禁用--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test('Disabled state - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {tests/select/slot-default.spec.ts (4)
3-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.While the current title "select 组件xdesign规范" accurately describes the test suite, using English for test descriptions can improve readability for international teams and maintain consistency with the code.
Consider changing the title to something like:
test.describe('Select Component XDesign Specification', () => {
4-16: LGTM: Well-structured UI test with a minor suggestion.The test case is well-structured and covers important aspects of UI testing:
- Proper error handling for page errors.
- Navigation to the correct page.
- Interaction with the select component.
- Screenshot comparisons for visual regression testing.
For consistency, consider using the same language (either Chinese or English) for both the test title and screenshot names. For example:
test('With labels and hint information--UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { // ... await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default-state.png') // ... await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('selected-state.png') })
18-28: LGTM: Well-structured UI test with minor suggestions.The test case follows a good structure similar to the first test, maintaining consistency in the testing approach. It correctly handles page errors and focuses on a specific aspect of the select component.
- For consistency, consider using the same language (either Chinese or English) for both the test title and screenshot name. For example:
test('Double line --UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { // ... await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('double-line.png') })
- Consider using a more specific selector for clicking the select component:
await select.nth(1).locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner').click()could be replaced with:
await select.nth(1).getByRole('button').click()This makes the test more resilient to changes in class names and better reflects the user's interaction with the component.
1-29: Overall: Well-structured UI tests with room for minor improvements.The file contains two well-written UI tests for the select component, focusing on visual regression testing. The tests follow good practices for Playwright testing, including proper error handling, interaction with components, and screenshot comparisons.
Consider the following improvements to enhance the tests further:
Consistency in language: Use either English or Chinese consistently throughout the file, including test titles and screenshot names.
Add descriptive comments: Include comments explaining the purpose of each major step in the tests. For example:
// Verify the default state of the select component await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default.png') // Interact with the select component and verify the selected state await select.nth(0).click() await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('selected.png')
- Use more semantic selectors: Where possible, use role-based selectors instead of class-based selectors for better resilience to UI changes.
These improvements will make the tests more maintainable and easier to understand for other developers.
tests/select/is-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts (3)
1-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.The test description uses Chinese characters. If this project involves international collaboration, consider using English for better readability across all team members.
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-17: Approved with a minor suggestion for consistency.This test case is well-structured and follows good practices for UI testing. It includes error handling, ensures the component is in the viewport, and captures screenshots for visual comparison.
For consistency, consider adding a
toBeInViewport()check before taking the second screenshot as well.await select.nth(0).click() +await expect(wrap).toBeInViewport() await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('auto.png')
1-30: Well-structured UI tests with room for expansion.Overall, these UI tests for the select component are well-structured and follow good practices. They cover two important scenarios: content auto-expansion and width inheritance. The use of screenshots for visual comparison is particularly valuable for catching unexpected UI changes.
To further enhance the test suite, consider adding the following test cases:
- Test the select component's behavior at different viewport sizes to ensure responsiveness.
- Verify the component's accessibility features, such as keyboard navigation and screen reader compatibility.
- Test more complex interactions, like selecting multiple items or searching within the select options.
- Ensure proper handling of edge cases, such as very long option text or a large number of options.
These additional test cases would provide more comprehensive coverage of the select component's functionality and user experience.
tests/select/nest-tree.spec.ts (3)
1-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For better maintainability and collaboration in international teams, it's recommended to use English for all test descriptions and comments.
Consider changing the test suite description to English:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-17: Approve test case with suggestions for improvement.The test case for single tree selection is well-structured and follows good practices. Here are some suggestions for further improvement:
- Consider adding more specific assertions before taking screenshots, such as checking for the presence of expected elements.
- The screenshot filenames could be more specific, e.g., 'single-tree-select-default.png' instead of 'default.png'.
- Add a small wait time or use
waitForbefore taking screenshots to ensure the UI has fully rendered.Here's an example of how you could implement these suggestions:
test('Single Tree Selection - UI Screenshot', async ({ page }) => { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) await page.goto('select#nest-tree') const demo = page.locator('#nest-tree .pc-demo') const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select') const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() await expect(select.first()).toBeVisible() await page.waitForTimeout(500) // Small wait to ensure UI is fully rendered await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('single-tree-select-default.png') await select.first().locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner').click() await expect(wrap.locator('.tiny-select-dropdown')).toBeVisible() await page.waitForTimeout(500) await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('single-tree-select-opened.png') })
1-30: Enhance overall test coverage with additional test cases.The current test file provides a good foundation for UI testing of the select component. To improve the overall test coverage and robustness, consider adding the following:
- Interaction tests: Verify that selecting items in the dropdown updates the select input correctly.
- Edge cases: Test with empty options, long option texts, and maximum selection limits for multiple select.
- Keyboard navigation: Ensure the component is usable with keyboard-only input.
- Accessibility tests: Add tests to check for proper ARIA attributes and roles.
- Different viewport sizes: Test the component's responsiveness on various screen sizes.
Here's an example of an additional test case for interaction:
test('Single Tree Selection - Interaction', async ({ page }) => { await page.goto('select#nest-tree') const select = page.locator('#nest-tree .pc-demo .tiny-select').first() const input = select.locator('input') await select.locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner').click() await page.locator('.tiny-select-dropdown .tiny-tree-node__content').first().click() await expect(input).toHaveValue(/^(?!Select).*$/) // Ensure the value is not the default "Select" text await expect(select).toHaveScreenshot('single-tree-select-after-selection.png') })Consider organizing these additional test cases into separate describe blocks for better structure and readability.
tests/select/nest-grid.spec.ts (2)
3-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The current description '组件xdesign规范' is in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, it's recommended to use English for test descriptions.
Consider changing the description to something like:
test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-17: LGTM: Good test structure. Consider adding more specific assertions.The test case for single selection is well-structured and includes important checks like page error detection and visual comparisons. To enhance its robustness, consider adding more specific assertions.
For example, you could add assertions to verify the state of the select component after interaction:
await select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner').click() await expect(select.nth(0)).toHaveClass(/is-focus/) // Verify focus state await expect(page.locator('.tiny-select__dropdown')).toBeVisible() // Verify dropdown is visible // Add more specific assertions here await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('grid-single.png')tests/select/nest-grid-remote.spec.ts (4)
3-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.While the current description is clear, using English for test descriptions can improve readability for international teams and align with common practices in software development.
Consider changing the test suite description to English:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-15: LGTM: Well-structured UI test with proper error handling.The test case is well-implemented, covering navigation, viewport checks, and screenshot comparisons. The error handling for page errors is a good practice.
Consider translating the test description to English for better readability:
-test('表格远程搜索单选--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test('Table remote search single selection - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
17-28: LGTM with suggestions: Well-structured UI test with room for improvement.The test case is well-implemented, covering navigation, interaction, and screenshot comparisons. However, there are a couple of points to consider:
Instead of using
page.waitForTimeout(), consider waiting for a specific condition or element to appear. This makes the test more reliable and less prone to timing issues.The test description is in Chinese, which might be less readable for non-Chinese speakers.
Consider the following improvements:
- Replace the timeout with a more specific wait condition:
- await page.waitForTimeout(1000) + await page.waitForSelector('.selector-for-loaded-state', { state: 'visible' })
- Translate the test description to English:
-test('表格远程搜索单选自动搜索--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test('Table remote search single selection automatic search - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
1-29: Overall: Well-implemented UI tests with minor suggestions for improvement.The file contains well-structured UI tests for the select component, effectively using Playwright for navigation, interaction, and screenshot comparisons. The error handling and viewport checks are good practices.
Suggestions for improvement:
- Consider using English consistently for test descriptions to improve readability for international teams.
- In the second test, replace
page.waitForTimeout()with a more specific wait condition for improved reliability.- There might be an opportunity to reduce duplication between the two test cases by extracting common setup code into a separate function or using Playwright's
test.beforeEach().Consider extracting common setup code into a separate function or using
test.beforeEach():test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => { test.beforeEach(async ({ page }) => { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) await page.goto('select#nest-grid-remote') const demo = page.locator('#nest-grid-remote .pc-demo') await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() }) // ... existing test cases ... })This refactoring would reduce duplication and make the tests more maintainable.
tests/select/nest-grid-disable.spec.ts (4)
3-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.While the current title accurately describes the test suite, using English for test descriptions can improve readability and collaboration in international teams.
Consider changing the describe block title to English, for example:
test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-17: Approve test case with suggestion for English title.The test case is well-structured and follows good practices:
- Checks for page errors
- Ensures elements are in viewport before interactions
- Captures screenshots for visual regression testing
Consider changing the test title to English for better readability in international teams:
test('Disabled single-select in table - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
19-29: Approve test case with suggestions for improvement.The test case is well-structured and follows good practices similar to the first test.
Consider the following improvements:
- Change the test title to English for better readability:
test('Disabled multi-select in table - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
- To reduce code duplication, consider extracting common setup code into a beforeEach hook or a shared function. For example:
const setupTest = async (page) => { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) await page.goto('select#nest-grid-disable') return { demo: page.locator('#nest-grid-disable .pc-demo'), select: page.locator('#nest-grid-disable .pc-demo .tiny-select'), wrap: page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') } } test('Disabled single-select in table - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { const { demo, select, wrap } = await setupTest(page) // Rest of the test... }) test('Disabled multi-select in table - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { const { select, wrap } = await setupTest(page) // Rest of the test... })This refactoring will make the tests more maintainable and reduce the risk of inconsistencies between test setups.
1-30: Overall, good test coverage with room for improvement.The tests effectively cover the UI behavior of disabled select components, both single and multi-select. They follow good practices such as checking for page errors, ensuring elements are in the viewport, and capturing screenshots for visual regression testing.
To further improve the test suite:
- Use English for all test descriptions and titles to enhance readability for international teams.
- Consider extracting common setup code into a shared function or beforeEach hook to reduce duplication and improve maintainability.
- Add more assertions to verify the disabled state of the select components, not just relying on screenshots. For example:
await expect(select.nth(0)).toHaveAttribute('disabled', '')
- Consider adding tests for edge cases, such as attempting to interact with the disabled select components and verifying that no action occurs.
These improvements will make the tests more robust, maintainable, and comprehensive.
tests/select/map-field.spec.ts (3)
3-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.While the current description '组件xdesign规范' is clear, using English for test descriptions can improve international collaboration and maintainability.
Consider changing the test suite description to English, for example:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-20: Well-structured test case with room for improvement.The test case is well-structured and includes proper error handling and UI state verifications. However, consider the following suggestions:
- Use English for the test description to improve international collaboration.
- Add comments explaining the purpose of each screenshot capture for better maintainability.
Consider applying these changes:
- test('字段映射--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { + test('Field mapping - UI screenshots', async ({ page }) => { // ... (existing code) + // Capture initial state await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default.png') // ... (existing code) + // Capture state after clicking first select await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('map-field.png') // ... (existing code) + // Capture state after clicking second select await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('map-field-grid.png') })
1-33: Good start on UI testing with room for improvement.Overall, these tests provide a solid foundation for UI testing of the select component. The use of Playwright and screenshot comparisons is appropriate for this task. However, there are several areas where the tests could be improved:
- Internationalization: Use English for test descriptions and comments to facilitate international collaboration.
- Code organization: Reduce duplication by extracting common setup code.
- Documentation: Add comments explaining the purpose of each screenshot capture.
- Error handling: Consider adding more specific error checks beyond the general page error listener.
To further enhance these tests, consider:
- Implementing a custom expect matcher for screenshot comparisons with built-in retry logic to handle potential flakiness in UI tests.
- Adding tests for different viewport sizes to ensure responsive design.
- Implementing accessibility tests using Playwright's built-in accessibility testing features.
These improvements will make the tests more robust, maintainable, and comprehensive.
tests/select/multiple.spec.ts (3)
4-13: LGTM: Good setup and navigation. Consider making selectors more robust.The error handling and navigation setup are good practices. However, the use of
nth(0)for selecting elements might be fragile if the page structure changes.Consider using more specific selectors or data-testid attributes to make the tests more robust. For example:
const select = demo.locator('[data-testid="multi-select"]') const menu = page.locator('[data-testid="select-dropdown"]')
14-16: Clarify the commented out expectation.The commented out expectation
await expect(select).toBeInViewport()might be useful. If it's no longer needed, consider removing it. If it's still relevant, consider uncommenting it or adding a comment explaining why it's commented out.
38-38: Create issues for pending test cases.The TODO comment indicates that there are more demos to be tested. While it's good to note this, TODO comments can be easily overlooked.
Consider creating GitHub issues for each pending demo test case. This will help track the work more effectively. Would you like me to create these issues for you?
tests/select/option-group.spec.ts (6)
1-3: Consider adding an English translation for the describe block title.The describe block title is in Chinese, which might affect readability for non-Chinese speakers. Consider adding an English translation or comment to improve international collaboration.
You could modify the describe block as follows:
test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范 (Select Component XDesign Specification)', () => { // ... tests ... })
4-16: Approve test structure and suggest English translation for test title.The test structure follows good practices for Playwright tests, including proper error handling and visual regression testing. However, consider adding an English translation for the test title to improve readability for non-Chinese speakers.
You could modify the test title as follows:
test('分组 + 多选 + 面板可搜索--UI截图 (Grouped + Multi-select + Panel Searchable -- UI Screenshot)', async ({ page }) => { // ... test code ... })
18-30: Approve test structure and suggest English translation for test title.The test structure is consistent with the first test and follows good practices. Consider adding an English translation for the test title to improve readability for non-Chinese speakers.
You could modify the test title as follows:
test('单选分组 --UI截图 (Single-select Group -- UI Screenshot)', async ({ page }) => { // ... test code ... })
32-44: Approve test structure and suggest English translation for test title.The test structure remains consistent with the previous tests and follows good practices. Consider adding an English translation for the test title to improve readability for non-Chinese speakers.
You could modify the test title as follows:
test('多选分组 --UI截图 (Multi-select Group -- UI Screenshot)', async ({ page }) => { // ... test code ... })
46-58: Approve test structure and suggest English translation for test title.The test structure remains consistent with the previous tests and follows good practices. Consider adding an English translation for the test title to improve readability for non-Chinese speakers.
You could modify the test title as follows:
test('分组 + 多选 + 可搜索--UI截图 (Grouped + Multi-select + Searchable -- UI Screenshot)', async ({ page }) => { // ... test code ... })
1-59: Consider adding non-visual assertions and praise for comprehensive test coverage.The tests provide good coverage of different select component configurations using visual regression testing. This is excellent for catching UI changes. However, consider adding non-visual assertions to test the functionality of the select component.
For example, you could add assertions to check:
- If the correct number of options are displayed when the select is opened.
- If the correct option is selected after interaction.
- If the search functionality filters options correctly (for searchable selects).
Example:
// After clicking to open the select const options = page.locator('.tiny-select-dropdown__item') await expect(options).toHaveCount(expectedCount) // After selecting an option const selectedValue = await select.inputValue() expect(selectedValue).toBe(expectedValue) // For searchable selects, after entering a search term const visibleOptions = page.locator('.tiny-select-dropdown__item:visible') await expect(visibleOptions).toHaveCount(expectedFilteredCount)Overall, great job on providing comprehensive test coverage for the select component!
tests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts (2)
1-3: Consider using English for test descriptionsThe test suite description is currently in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, consider using English for all test descriptions and comments.
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-40: Well-structured test with good coverageThe test case covers various interaction states of the select component, including default state, hover, dropdown open, item hover, and item selection. The use of locators and screenshot assertions is appropriate for UI testing.
Consider using more robust waiting mechanisms
Instead of using
page.waitForTimeout(100), consider using Playwright's built-in waiting mechanisms likewaitForSelectororwaitForLoadState. This can make the tests more reliable and less prone to timing issues.Example refactor:
- await page.waitForTimeout(100) + await page.waitForSelector('.tiny-select-dropdown', { state: 'visible' })Use constants for repeated values
Consider defining constants for frequently used selectors and timeout values. This can improve maintainability and readability of the test code.
Example refactor:
const SELECTORS = { DEMO: '#basic-usage .pc-demo', SELECT: '.tiny-select', DROPDOWN: 'body > .tiny-select-dropdown', OPTION: '.tiny-option' }; const TIMEOUT = 100;Then use these constants throughout the test:
const demo = page.locator(SELECTORS.DEMO); const select = demo.locator(SELECTORS.SELECT).nth(0); // ... and so ontests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts (1)
1-110: Overall assessment: Comprehensive tests with room for improvementThe test file covers the essential functionality of the select component with collapsible tags, including default behavior, hover expand, and click expand interactions. However, there are several areas where the tests can be improved:
- Code structure: Refactor common setup and interaction patterns into helper functions or fixtures to reduce duplication.
- Test stability: Replace
page.waitForTimeout()with more reliable waiting mechanisms likewaitForSelector()orwaitForLoadState().- Readability: Add clear comments explaining the purpose of each test step and use more descriptive names for screenshots.
- Parameterization: Consider using parameterized tests for similar test cases to further reduce code duplication.
- Error handling: Implement proper error handling and reporting to make debugging easier in case of test failures.
By addressing these points, you can create a more maintainable, reliable, and efficient test suite for the select component.
Consider implementing a Page Object Model (POM) or similar design pattern to encapsulate the select component's behavior and locators. This would make the tests even more maintainable and allow for easier reuse of component interactions across different test files.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (95)
tests/select/allow-create.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/allow-create.spec.ts-snapshots/top-create-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/default1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/hover1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/item-checked-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/item-checked1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/item-click-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/item-click1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/item-hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/item-hover1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/binding-obj.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/cache-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/clear-no-match-value.spec.ts-snapshots/clear-no-match-value-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/clearable.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/clearable.spec.ts-snapshots/hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/click-expand2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/default1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/default2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/hover1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-checked-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-checked1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-checked2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-click-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-click1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-click2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-hover1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-hover2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/unexpand2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/copy-multi.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/copy-single.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/disabled.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/disabled.spec.ts-snapshots/hover1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/disabled.spec.ts-snapshots/hover2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/disabled.spec.ts-snapshots/hover3-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/filter-method.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/filter-method.spec.ts-snapshots/filter-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/filter-method.spec.ts-snapshots/unfilter-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/hide-drop.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/input-box-type.spec.ts-snapshots/input-box-type-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/is-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts-snapshots/auto-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/is-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/is-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts-snapshots/inherit-width-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/map-field.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/map-field.spec.ts-snapshots/map-field-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/map-field.spec.ts-snapshots/map-field-grid-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/memoize-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/multiple-mix.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/multiple-mix.spec.ts-snapshots/display-only-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/multiple.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/multiple.spec.ts-snapshots/hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/multiple.spec.ts-snapshots/item-checked-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/multiple.spec.ts-snapshots/item-click-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/multiple.spec.ts-snapshots/item-hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid-disable.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid-disable.spec.ts-snapshots/grid-multiple-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid-disable.spec.ts-snapshots/grid-single-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid-remote.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid-remote.spec.ts-snapshots/grid-single-auto-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid-remote.spec.ts-snapshots/grid-single-auto1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid-remote.spec.ts-snapshots/grid-single-remote-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid.spec.ts-snapshots/grid-multiple-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid.spec.ts-snapshots/grid-single-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-tree.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-tree.spec.ts-snapshots/tree-multiple-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-tree.spec.ts-snapshots/tree-single-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/optimization.spec.ts-snapshots/optimization-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/option-group.spec.ts-snapshots/group0-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/option-group.spec.ts-snapshots/group1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/option-group.spec.ts-snapshots/group2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/option-group.spec.ts-snapshots/group3-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/popup-style-position.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/popup-style-position.spec.ts-snapshots/popup-style-position-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/remote-method.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/remote-method.spec.ts-snapshots/filter-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/remote-method.spec.ts-snapshots/unfilter-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/s-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts-snapshots/auto-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/s-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/s-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts-snapshots/inherit-width-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/searchable.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/searchable.spec.ts-snapshots/unfilter-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/show-alloption.spec.ts-snapshots/show-alloption-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/size.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/slot-default.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/slot-default.spec.ts-snapshots/double-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/slot-default.spec.ts-snapshots/has-tag-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/slot-empty.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/slot-label.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/slot-prefix.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/tag-type.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.png
Files selected for processing (38)
- tests/select/allow-create.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/automatic-dropdown.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/binding-obj.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/cache-usage.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/clear-no-match-value.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/clearable.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/copy-multi.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/copy-single.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/disabled.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/filter-method.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/hide-drop.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/input-box-type.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/is-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/manual-focus-blur.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/map-field.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/memoize-usage.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/multiple-mix.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/multiple.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/native-properties.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/nest-grid-disable.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/nest-grid-remote.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/nest-grid.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/nest-tree.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/no-data-text.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/optimization.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/option-group.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/popup-style-position.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/remote-method.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/searchable.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/show-alloption.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/size.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/slot-default.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/slot-empty.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/slot-label.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/slot-prefix.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/tag-type.spec.ts (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (38)
tests/select/size.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and concise.The necessary imports from Playwright's testing framework are present and there are no unused imports.
tests/select/tag-type.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and necessary.The imports from '@playwright/test' are appropriate for this Playwright test file.
tests/select/slot-label.spec.ts (3)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and concise.The necessary Playwright test utilities are imported correctly.
1-14: Overall assessment: Good start, but room for improvementThis test file provides a basic UI test for the select component, which is a good starting point. However, to ensure comprehensive coverage and maintainability, consider implementing the following improvements:
- Expand the test suite to cover more scenarios.
- Enhance the test case to include interaction with the component and more detailed assertions.
- Implement a mechanism for updating reference screenshots.
- Use English descriptions or provide bilingual comments for better collaboration.
These enhancements will significantly improve the robustness and effectiveness of your test suite.
5-12: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionEnhance test case implementation for more comprehensive coverage.
The current implementation is a good start, but consider the following improvements:
- Add interaction with the select component to test its functionality.
- Implement a mechanism to update the reference screenshot when needed.
- Add more assertions to verify the component's state and behavior.
Here's a suggested improvement:
test('Label Slot - UI and Functionality', async ({ page }) => { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) await page.goto('select#slot-label') const demo = page.locator('#slot-label .pc-demo') const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select') await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() // Verify initial state await expect(select).toBeVisible() await expect(select).toHaveAttribute('aria-expanded', 'false') // Interact with the component await select.click() await expect(select).toHaveAttribute('aria-expanded', 'true') // Capture and compare screenshot await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('expanded.png') // Select an option (adjust the selector as needed) await page.click('.tiny-select-dropdown .tiny-select-dropdown__item:first-child') await expect(select).toHaveAttribute('aria-expanded', 'false') // Verify the selection (adjust assertion as needed) await expect(select.locator('.tiny-select__selected-value')).toHaveText(/Selected Option/) // Final state screenshot await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('selected.png') })Also, consider adding a command to update reference screenshots when needed, e.g.:
npx playwright test --update-snapshotsTo ensure the select component is properly rendered and accessible, run:
tests/select/copy-multi.spec.ts (1)
4-6: Enhance test setup and improve naming.
- Consider using English for the test name to improve international collaboration.
- The navigation uses a fragment identifier, which might be insufficient for complex routing. Consider using a full URL or a more robust navigation method.
-test('多选可复制--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test('Multi-select with copy functionality - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) - await page.goto('select#copy-multi') + await page.goto('http://your-base-url/path/to/select#copy-multi')To ensure the correct URL is being used, run the following script:
tests/select/copy-single.spec.ts (1)
1-14: Summary: Good start, but room for improvement in test coverageOverall, this test file provides a good foundation for testing the select component with copy functionality. However, there are several areas where it could be improved:
- Use English for test suite and test case descriptions.
- Verify the URL navigation method.
- Enhance test coverage by adding more interactions and assertions, particularly for the copy functionality.
- Consider adding multiple test cases to cover different scenarios (e.g., selecting different options, copying different values).
These improvements will make the tests more robust, maintainable, and effective at catching potential issues in the select component.
tests/select/binding-obj.spec.ts (1)
1-14: Overall assessment: Good start, but needs improvements.This test file provides a basic UI test for the select component, which is a good start. However, there are several areas for improvement:
- Internationalization: Use English for test descriptions to improve collaboration.
- Navigation: Implement a more robust navigation method.
- Test coverage: Add more test cases to cover component interaction and functionality, especially related to object binding.
- Error handling: While there's an error listener, consider adding specific error checks related to the select component.
Addressing these points will significantly enhance the quality and effectiveness of the test suite.
tests/select/optimization.spec.ts (2)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and concise.The necessary imports from Playwright's testing framework are present and there are no unused imports.
4-13:⚠️ Potential issueEnhance test case to match its description and improve robustness.
The test case structure is good, but there are several areas for improvement:
- The test title suggests it's checking for automatic clearing of non-matching values, but the test doesn't interact with the select component to verify this behavior.
- The selectors used (especially
#optimization) might be brittle. Consider using more robust selectors or data-testid attributes.- The screenshot comparison is good for UI testing, but it might be sensitive to minor UI changes.
Here are some suggestions to improve the test:
- Add interactions with the select component to test the "automatic clearing" behavior:
// Add these lines before the screenshot capture await select.click(); await page.keyboard.type('non-matching-value'); await page.keyboard.press('Enter'); await expect(select).toHaveText(''); // Assuming it should clear when a non-matching value is entered
- Use more robust selectors:
-const demo = page.locator('#optimization .pc-demo') -const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select') +const demo = page.locator('[data-testid="optimization-demo"]') +const select = demo.locator('[data-testid="tiny-select"]')
- Consider adding more specific assertions about the select component's behavior in addition to the screenshot comparison.
To ensure that the suggested data-testid attributes are available, run the following script:
If the script doesn't find these attributes, you may need to add them to the component's source code first.
tests/select/native-properties.spec.ts (1)
5-5: Good practice: Error handler setup.Setting up an error handler to catch unexpected page errors is a good practice. It helps prevent silent failures and improves test reliability.
tests/select/input-box-type.spec.ts (1)
8-12: Element selection and assertions look good.The element selection is specific and the assertions are appropriate for a UI test. The viewport check ensures the element is visible before taking the screenshot.
Note on screenshot testing: While effective for catching unintended UI changes, screenshot tests can be brittle if the UI changes frequently. Ensure your team has a process for updating these screenshots when intended changes occur.
To verify the uniqueness of the selectors, run the following script:
This will help ensure the selectors used in the test are unique and correctly target the intended elements.
Verification successful
To ensure the selectors
#input-box-typeand.tiny-selectare unique across the codebase, please run the following script:
Selectors are correctly scoped and unique as intended.
The
#input-box-typeselector is uniquely used intests/select/input-box-type.spec.ts, ensuring it targets the intended element without conflicts. The.tiny-selectclass is appropriately utilized across multiple test files, aligning with its role as a reusable CSS class.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential duplicate selectors in the codebase # Test: Search for '#input-box-type' and '.tiny-select' selectors echo "Occurrences of '#input-box-type':" rg --type html '#input-box-type' echo "\nOccurrences of '.tiny-select':" rg --type html '\.tiny-select'Length of output: 529
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for potential duplicate selectors in the codebase # Test: Search for '#input-box-type' and '.tiny-select' selectors in all relevant files echo "Occurrences of '#input-box-type':" rg '#input-box-type' echo "\nOccurrences of '.tiny-select':" rg '\.tiny-select'Length of output: 5406
tests/select/automatic-dropdown.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and concise.The necessary imports from '@playwright/test' are present, providing the required testing utilities.
tests/select/clear-no-match-value.spec.ts (2)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and concise.The necessary Playwright test utilities are imported correctly.
4-13: LGTM: Well-structured test case with good practices.The test case follows Playwright best practices, including error handling, navigation, and UI checks. The use of screenshot comparison for UI testing is appropriate.
tests/select/slot-prefix.spec.ts (3)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and necessary.The imports from '@playwright/test' are appropriate for the Playwright testing framework.
4-14: LGTM: Well-structured test case with good practices.The test case is well-implemented with proper error handling, element location, and visual regression testing. The use of
toBeInViewport()before interaction is a good practice.
1-15: Overall, good implementation with room for minor improvements.This new test suite for the select component is well-structured and follows good testing practices. The use of Playwright for end-to-end testing is appropriate, and the visual regression testing approach is valuable. To further enhance the test suite:
- Consider using English consistently for test suite and case descriptions to improve international collaboration.
- Add more specific assertions to complement the visual regression test, providing clearer failure messages and increasing test robustness.
These changes will make the test suite more maintainable and effective in catching potential issues with the select component.
tests/select/no-data-text.spec.ts (1)
14-16:⚠️ Potential issueAddress TODO and expand test coverage
The TODO comment indicates known functionality issues. It's important to address these issues and expand the test coverage to include interaction testing.
- Create a GitHub issue to track the functionality problems mentioned in the TODO.
- Expand the test case to include interaction testing, such as:
- Clicking the select to open the dropdown
- Verifying the "no data" state in the open dropdown
- Checking if the select behaves correctly when there's no data
To verify the extent of the functionality issues, run the following script:
This will help identify related tests and implementations, providing context for addressing the TODO and expanding test coverage.
tests/select/hide-drop.spec.ts (1)
4-6: Improve test case setup and navigation.
- Consider using English for the test title to improve international collaboration.
- The URL in
page.goto()seems incomplete. It should be a full URL or a relative path.Here's a suggested improvement:
test('Hide dropdown - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) await page.goto('/path/to/select#hide-drop')To ensure the correct URL is being used, please run the following script:
Verification successful
Test case setup and navigation is correctly configured.
- The
baseURLis properly set inplaywright.config.ts, so the relative URL inpage.goto('select#hide-drop')is valid.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the base URL used in Playwright tests # Test: Search for the base URL configuration in the Playwright config file rg --type typescript 'baseURL' playwright.config.tsLength of output: 86
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the base URL used in Playwright tests # Corrected Test: Search for the base URL configuration in the Playwright config file rg --type ts 'baseURL' playwright.config.tsLength of output: 119
tests/select/slot-empty.spec.ts (3)
1-1: LGTM: Appropriate imports for Playwright testing.The imports are correct and minimal, including only the necessary utilities from Playwright.
5-15: LGTM: Well-structured test case with appropriate setup and interactions.The test case follows a logical flow:
- Sets up an error listener
- Navigates to the specific component URL
- Locates and interacts with the select component
- Performs a screenshot comparison for visual regression testing
This structure is clear and follows good testing practices.
1-16: Overall, well-structured test that aligns with PR objectives.This test file successfully adds a UI test case for the select component, aligning with the PR objectives. It follows good Playwright testing practices and includes navigation, interaction, and visual comparison.
Suggestions for improvement:
- Add English translations for Chinese names to improve international readability.
- Include more specific assertions about the component's state before the screenshot comparison.
These enhancements will further improve the test's robustness and maintainability.
tests/select/show-alloption.spec.ts (2)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and concise.The necessary Playwright test utilities are imported correctly.
4-16: LGTM: Overall test structure and practices are good.The test case follows good practices for Playwright tests:
- Setting up an error listener
- Navigating to the correct page
- Using locators to find elements
- Checking if the demo component is in the viewport
- Capturing and comparing screenshots
These practices contribute to a robust and reliable test.
tests/select/searchable.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and necessary.The import statement is appropriate for Playwright testing, importing only the necessary functions.
tests/select/filter-method.spec.ts (1)
1-22: Overall assessment: Good foundation with room for improvementThis test file provides a solid foundation for UI testing of the select component with filtering capabilities. The use of Playwright for UI testing and the inclusion of screenshot comparisons are positive aspects. However, there are several areas where the test can be improved:
- Use of English or bilingual descriptions for better international collaboration.
- More robust page navigation methods.
- Additional assertions to verify component states programmatically.
- Parameterization of test data for more comprehensive testing.
- More detailed verification of filtering results.
Implementing these suggestions will result in a more robust, flexible, and maintainable test suite that provides greater confidence in the select component's functionality.
tests/select/remote-method.spec.ts (2)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and necessary.The imports for
expectandtestfrom '@playwright/test' are appropriate for writing Playwright tests.
5-5: LGTM: Proper error handling implemented.The error handler for page errors is correctly set up. This ensures that any unexpected page errors during the test will cause the test to fail, which is a good practice for maintaining test reliability.
tests/select/slot-default.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and concise.The necessary imports from '@playwright/test' are present, providing the required testing utilities.
tests/select/nest-grid.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and concise.The necessary imports from Playwright are present, and there are no unused imports.
tests/select/nest-grid-remote.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and concise.The necessary imports from Playwright are present, and there are no unused imports.
tests/select/nest-grid-disable.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and necessary.The import statement is concise and includes only the required functions from the Playwright test library.
tests/select/map-field.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and concise.The necessary imports from Playwright are present, and there are no unused imports.
tests/select/multiple.spec.ts (2)
1-3: LGTM: Imports and structure are correct.The imports from '@playwright/test' and the use of
test.describefollow Playwright's testing conventions.
1-39: Overall assessment: Good start, with room for improvement.This new test file provides a solid foundation for testing the multi-select component's UI. The test case covers various interactions and captures screenshots at different states, which is great for visual regression testing.
However, there are several areas where the test could be improved:
- Use more specific selectors to make the test more robust.
- Replace hardcoded timeouts with more reliable waiting mechanisms.
- Add assertions to verify the component's state after interactions.
- Create GitHub issues for the pending demo test cases.
Implementing these suggestions will make the test more reliable and easier to maintain. Great work on starting to improve the test coverage for the select component!
tests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts (1)
1-72: Well-structured UI tests with room for improvementOverall, these tests provide comprehensive coverage of the select component's UI functionality, including various interaction states and visual regression testing through screenshots. The use of Playwright's API is generally good, and the error handling is a nice touch.
Key areas for improvement:
- Reduce code duplication between the two test cases.
- Use more robust waiting mechanisms instead of fixed timeouts.
- Improve element selection strategy by using data attributes.
- Enhance screenshot naming for better clarity.
- Consider using English for test descriptions and comments.
Implementing these suggestions will result in more maintainable, readable, and stable tests. Great job on the initial implementation, and these refinements will further enhance the quality of your test suite.
tests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and necessary.The import statement is concise and includes only the required functions from the Playwright test library.
| test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { | ||
| test('尺寸--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider improving test suite structure and naming conventions.
While the test suite structure follows Playwright's practices, consider the following improvements:
- Use English descriptions for better international collaboration.
- Add more test cases to cover different size variations of the select component.
Example:
test.describe('Select Component xDesign Specifications', () => {
test('Size Variations - UI Screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
// ... (existing test code)
});
// Additional test cases
test('Small Size - UI and Functionality', async ({ page }) => {
// ... (test small size)
});
test('Large Size - UI and Functionality', async ({ page }) => {
// ... (test large size)
});
});| page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) | ||
| await page.goto('select#size') | ||
|
|
||
| const demo = page.locator('#size .pc-demo') | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default.png') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance test robustness and coverage.
The current test implementation is a good start, but consider the following improvements:
-
The URL 'select#size' might be incomplete. Ensure it's the correct path:
await page.goto('http://your-base-url/select#size')
-
Add more specific checks before taking the screenshot:
const selectElement = demo.locator('select'); await expect(selectElement).toBeVisible(); await expect(selectElement).toHaveAttribute('size', 'default');
-
Consider adding interaction tests:
await selectElement.click(); await expect(selectElement).toBeFocused();
-
Instead of relying solely on screenshot comparison, which can be brittle, add more specific assertions:
const computedStyle = await selectElement.evaluate((el) => window.getComputedStyle(el).getPropertyValue('height') ); expect(computedStyle).toBe('32px'); // Adjust the expected value as per your design
-
If possible, test multiple size variations within this test case or in separate test cases.
| const demo = page.locator('#tag-type .pc-demo') | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default.png') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve screenshot comparison process.
While using screenshot comparison is a good practice for detecting unexpected UI changes, there are some improvements that could be made:
- The baseline screenshot 'default.png' has a generic name. Consider using a more descriptive name that includes the component and the specific state being tested.
- There's no information about how the baseline screenshot was generated or where it's stored. This information should be documented.
Here's a suggested improvement:
await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('select-tag-type-default.png')Also, consider adding a comment explaining the screenshot generation process:
// Baseline screenshots are generated using the `npx playwright test --update-snapshots` command
// and are stored in the `tests/select/__snapshots__` directory| test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { | ||
| test('标签插槽--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider enhancing the test suite structure and description.
- The test suite description is in Chinese. Consider using English for better international collaboration, or add bilingual descriptions.
- There's only one test case. Consider adding more test cases to cover different scenarios for the select component.
Here's a suggested improvement:
test.describe('Select Component xDesign Specification', () => {
test.describe('Label Slot', () => {
test('UI Screenshot - Default State', async ({ page }) => {
// ... (existing test case implementation)
})
// Additional test cases can be added here
// For example:
// test('UI Screenshot - Expanded State', async ({ page }) => { ... })
// test('UI Screenshot - Disabled State', async ({ page }) => { ... })
})
})| const demo = page.locator('#copy-multi .pc-demo') | ||
| const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select') | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance test coverage with additional checks and interactions.
While checking if the demo is in the viewport is good, consider adding more specific checks and interactions:
- Verify that the select component is visible and enabled.
- Interact with the select component to test its functionality.
- Check for specific attributes or classes that indicate the component's state.
Add the following checks and interactions:
await expect(select).toBeVisible();
await expect(select).toBeEnabled();
// Open the select dropdown
await select.click();
// Verify that the dropdown is open
await expect(select).toHaveClass(/tiny-select--open/);
// Select multiple options (adjust selectors as needed)
await select.locator('.tiny-select-option').nth(0).click();
await select.locator('.tiny-select-option').nth(1).click();
// Verify selected options
const selectedOptions = await select.locator('.tiny-select-selection-item').count();
expect(selectedOptions).toBe(2);
// Test copy functionality (if applicable)
// This part depends on how the copy feature is implemented| test('树多选--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { | ||
| page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) | ||
| await page.goto('select#nest-tree') | ||
|
|
||
| const demo = page.locator('#nest-tree .pc-demo') | ||
| const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select') | ||
| const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') | ||
|
|
||
| await select.nth(1).locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner').click() | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('tree-multiple.png') | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance the second test case for consistency and completeness.
The test case for multiple tree selection could be improved to be more comprehensive and consistent with the first test case. Consider the following suggestions:
- Add a check for demo visibility.
- Take a default screenshot before interaction.
- Add more specific assertions before taking screenshots.
- Use more descriptive screenshot filenames.
- Add a small wait time before taking screenshots.
Here's an example of how you could implement these improvements:
test('Multiple Tree Selection - UI Screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull())
await page.goto('select#nest-tree')
const demo = page.locator('#nest-tree .pc-demo')
const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select')
const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap')
await expect(demo).toBeInViewport()
await expect(select.nth(1)).toBeVisible()
await page.waitForTimeout(500)
await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('multiple-tree-select-default.png')
await select.nth(1).locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner').click()
await expect(wrap.locator('.tiny-select-dropdown')).toBeVisible()
await page.waitForTimeout(500)
await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('multiple-tree-select-opened.png')
})| await select.hover() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('hover.png') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using a more robust waiting mechanism.
Instead of using a fixed timeout, consider waiting for a specific state or animation to complete. This can make the test more reliable and faster in most cases.
You could use Playwright's waitForSelector or waitForFunction methods. For example:
await page.waitForSelector('.hover-state-class', { state: 'attached' })
// or
await page.waitForFunction(() => {
const element = document.querySelector('.tiny-select');
return window.getComputedStyle(element).getPropertyValue('transition') === 'none';
})| await suffix.nth(0).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
|
|
||
| await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(2).hover() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-hover.png') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Use consistent and robust waiting mechanisms.
The use of hardcoded timeouts (page.waitForTimeout(200)) is present throughout the test. Consider replacing these with more reliable waiting mechanisms as suggested earlier.
For example, after clicking the suffix, you could wait for the dropdown to be visible:
await suffix.nth(0).click()
await menu.waitFor({ state: 'visible' })And after hovering over an item:
await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(2).hover()
await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(2).waitFor({ state: 'hover' })| await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(3).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-click.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await suffix.nth(0).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-checked.png') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add assertion for checked state and improve waiting mechanism.
The test captures screenshots of the checked state but doesn't verify that the item is actually checked. Consider adding an assertion to ensure the correct item is selected.
Here's an example of how you could improve this section:
await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(3).click()
await expect(menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(3)).toHaveClass(/is-selected/)
await suffix.nth(0).click()
await menu.waitFor({ state: 'hidden' })
await expect(select).toContainText('Option 4') // Assuming the 4th option was clicked
await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-checked.png')| import { expect, test } from '@playwright/test' | ||
|
|
||
| test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { | ||
| test('分组 + 多选 + 面板可搜索--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { | ||
| page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) | ||
| await page.goto('select#option-group') | ||
|
|
||
| const demo = page.locator('#option-group .pc-demo') | ||
| const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select') | ||
| const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner').nth(0).click() | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('group0.png') | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| test('单选分组 --UI截图', async ({ page }) => { | ||
| page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) | ||
| await page.goto('select#option-group') | ||
|
|
||
| const demo = page.locator('#option-group .pc-demo') | ||
| const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select') | ||
| const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await select.nth(1).locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner').click() | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('group1.png') | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| test('多选分组 --UI截图', async ({ page }) => { | ||
| page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) | ||
| await page.goto('select#option-group') | ||
|
|
||
| const demo = page.locator('#option-group .pc-demo') | ||
| const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select') | ||
| const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await select.nth(2).locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner').click() | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('group2.png') | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| test('分组 + 多选 + 可搜索--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { | ||
| page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) | ||
| await page.goto('select#option-group') | ||
|
|
||
| const demo = page.locator('#option-group .pc-demo') | ||
| const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select') | ||
| const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await select.nth(3).locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner').click() | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('group3.png') | ||
| }) | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider refactoring to reduce code duplication.
The four test cases have very similar structures, differing mainly in the select component index and screenshot filename. To improve maintainability and reduce code duplication, consider refactoring these tests into a parameterized test.
Here's an example of how you could refactor the tests:
import { expect, test } from '@playwright/test'
const testCases = [
{ title: '分组 + 多选 + 面板可搜索 (Grouped + Multi-select + Panel Searchable)', selectIndex: 0, screenshotName: 'group0.png' },
{ title: '单选分组 (Single-select Group)', selectIndex: 1, screenshotName: 'group1.png' },
{ title: '多选分组 (Multi-select Group)', selectIndex: 2, screenshotName: 'group2.png' },
{ title: '分组 + 多选 + 可搜索 (Grouped + Multi-select + Searchable)', selectIndex: 3, screenshotName: 'group3.png' }
]
test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范 (Select Component XDesign Specification)', () => {
for (const { title, selectIndex, screenshotName } of testCases) {
test(`${title} -- UI Screenshot`, async ({ page }) => {
page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull())
await page.goto('select#option-group')
const demo = page.locator('#option-group .pc-demo')
const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select')
const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap')
await expect(demo).toBeInViewport()
await select.nth(selectIndex).locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner').click()
await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot(screenshotName)
})
}
})This refactored version reduces code duplication, improves maintainability, and makes it easier to add new test cases in the future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 55
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (77)
tests/select/size.spec.ts (1)
1-13: Overall assessment: Good start, but needs improvements for comprehensive testing.This test suite provides a foundation for testing the select component's size variations, which aligns with the PR objectives. However, to fully meet the goal of comprehensive UI testing, consider the following next steps:
- Implement the suggested improvements in the previous comments to enhance test readability, robustness, and coverage.
- Add more test cases to cover different size variations and edge cases.
- Include tests for user interactions, such as selecting options and verifying the component's behavior.
- Consider adding visual regression tests for different states of the select component (e.g., focused, disabled, with selected options).
- Ensure that all test descriptions and comments are in English for better collaboration.
By addressing these points, you'll create a more comprehensive and reliable test suite for the select component, better fulfilling the PR objectives.
tests/select/tag-type.spec.ts (1)
5-11: LGTM: Test implementation is solid, with room for minor improvements.The test implementation follows good practices:
- Setting up an error handler for page errors.
- Navigating to the correct URL.
- Verifying the demo element is in the viewport before taking a screenshot.
However, consider improving the screenshot comparison process:
- Use a more descriptive filename for the screenshot, e.g., 'select-tag-type-default.png'.
- Add a comment explaining the screenshot generation process.
Suggested improvement:
// Baseline screenshots are generated using the `npx playwright test --update-snapshots` command // and are stored in the `tests/select/__snapshots__` directory await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('select-tag-type-default.png')tests/select/slot-label.spec.ts (1)
1-14: Summary: Good start, but room for improvementThis test file provides a foundation for testing the select component, but there are several areas for enhancement:
- Use English for test descriptions to improve international collaboration.
- Restructure the test suite to accommodate more test cases easily.
- Expand test coverage to include user interactions, different component states, and accessibility checks.
- Consider adding more assertions to verify the component's behavior beyond visual comparison.
Next steps:
- Implement the suggested improvements to create a more robust and maintainable test suite.
- Add more test cases to cover various scenarios and edge cases for the select component.
- Ensure that the tests align with the component's specifications and requirements.
These enhancements will significantly improve the quality and reliability of the select component tests.
tests/select/copy-multi.spec.ts (2)
5-6: LGTM: Good error handling. Consider using a more explicit URL.The error handler is a good practice. For the navigation, consider using a more explicit URL for better readability and maintenance:
await page.goto('http://your-base-url/path-to-select-component#copy-multi')Replace 'http://your-base-url/path-to-select-component' with the actual base URL of your application.
1-14: Summary: Good start, but needs enhancement for comprehensive testing.Overall, this test file provides a good starting point for testing the select component with multi-select and copy functionality. However, to fully meet the PR objectives of adding comprehensive UI test cases, consider the following next steps:
- Implement the suggested improvements for test naming, structure, and coverage.
- Add more test cases to cover different scenarios and edge cases of the select component.
- Ensure that the copy functionality is thoroughly tested, as it's mentioned in the test name but not implemented in the current version.
- Consider adding visual regression tests for different states of the component (default, open, selected, etc.).
- Add comments to explain complex parts of the test logic for better maintainability.
These enhancements will significantly improve the test suite's effectiveness in ensuring the reliability of the select component.
tests/select/copy-single.spec.ts (4)
4-6: LGTM: Good test case setup with room for improvement.The test case declaration and initial setup are correct. The error handler is a good practice to catch unexpected errors.
Consider using a base URL configuration in your Playwright setup instead of hardcoding the URL path. This would make the tests more maintainable and easier to update if the base URL changes. You could modify the navigation line as follows:
await page.goto('/select#copy-single')Then, set up the base URL in your Playwright configuration file.
8-11: Good start, but more interactions needed.The locators for the demo and select components are correctly defined, and the viewport assertion is a good check. However, the test lacks interactions with the select component.
Consider enhancing the test with additional interactions and assertions as suggested in the previous review:
- Open the select dropdown and verify it's open.
- Select an option and verify the selected value.
- Test the copy functionality if applicable.
Here's an example of how you could expand this section:
await select.click(); await expect(select).toHaveClass(/tiny-select--open/); const option = select.locator('.tiny-select-option').nth(1); await option.click(); const selectedValue = await select.locator('.tiny-select-selection-text').textContent(); expect(selectedValue).toBe('Expected Value'); // If copy functionality is present const copyButton = select.locator('.tiny-select-copy-button'); await copyButton.click(); // Add assertion for copied content if possibleThese additions would provide a more comprehensive test of the select component's functionality.
12-13: Good use of screenshot testing, but more states should be captured.The screenshot comparison for the default state is a good practice for visual regression testing. However, capturing only the default state limits the effectiveness of the test.
Enhance the visual regression testing by capturing screenshots of different component states:
- Capture the default state (as you're already doing).
- Capture the state after opening the dropdown.
- Capture the state after selecting an option.
- If applicable, capture the state after using the copy functionality.
Here's an example of how you could implement this:
await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default.png'); await select.click(); await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('dropdown-open.png'); const option = select.locator('.tiny-select-option').nth(1); await option.click(); await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('option-selected.png'); // If copy functionality is present const copyButton = select.locator('.tiny-select-copy-button'); await copyButton.click(); await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('after-copy.png');This approach would provide a more comprehensive visual regression test suite for the select component.
1-14: Overall assessment: Good foundation, needs expansionThis test provides a solid starting point for UI testing of the select component. However, to fully meet the objectives of the PR and ensure comprehensive coverage, consider the following overall recommendations:
- Implement more interactions with the select component (opening, selecting, copying).
- Add assertions to verify the component's behavior after each interaction.
- Expand visual regression testing to capture multiple states of the component.
- Use a base URL configuration for better maintainability.
These enhancements will result in a more robust and effective test suite, better aligning with the PR's objective of adding comprehensive UI test cases for the select component.
tests/select/binding-obj.spec.ts (1)
1-3: Consider using English for the test suite description.To improve international collaboration and maintain consistency with the codebase, consider translating the test suite description to English.
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {tests/select/optimization.spec.ts (3)
1-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, it's recommended to use English for test descriptions.
Consider changing the test suite description to English:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specifications', () => {
4-5: Approve error listener setup and suggest test title improvement.The error listener setup is a good practice to catch unexpected errors during the test execution. However, the test title could be more descriptive and in English for better clarity.
Consider updating the test title to be more descriptive and in English:
-test('自动清除不匹配的值--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test('Automatically clear non-matching values - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
1-14: Overall test structure is good, but needs more comprehensive coverage.The test file provides a good starting point for testing the select component, including visual regression testing. However, it falls short in thoroughly testing the described functionality of automatically clearing non-matching values.
To improve the test coverage and align with the PR objectives:
- Add more test cases to cover different scenarios of clearing non-matching values.
- Include assertions that verify the component's state after interactions.
- Consider adding tests for other optimization features of the select component, if any.
- Ensure all test descriptions and comments are in English for better maintainability.
Remember, comprehensive test coverage is crucial for maintaining the reliability of the select component as the codebase evolves.
tests/select/native-properties.spec.ts (3)
3-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The current description '组件xdesign规范' is in Chinese, which might hinder understanding for non-Chinese speaking developers. Consider translating it to English and providing more context about what 'xdesign specifications' entail.
For example:
test.describe('Select component xdesign specifications', () => {Also, consider adding a brief comment explaining what 'xdesign specifications' refer to in this context.
4-5: Translate test title to English and good use of error handler.
Consider translating the test title '多选可复制--UI截图' to English for better understanding across the team. For example:
test('Multi-select copyable - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {The error handler setup is a good practice to catch unexpected page errors during the test execution.
11-12: Good use of assertions, consider adding interactions.The viewport check and screenshot comparison are good practices for UI testing. However, consider adding interactions with the select component before taking the screenshot to ensure the multi-select and copyable functionalities are tested.
For example:
await select.click(); await page.keyboard.type('Option 1'); await page.keyboard.press('Enter'); await page.keyboard.type('Option 2'); await page.keyboard.press('Enter'); // Then take the screenshot await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('multi-select.png');This would provide a more comprehensive test of the component's functionality.
tests/select/input-box-type.spec.ts (1)
1-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.While the current description is clear, using English for test descriptions can improve international collaboration and maintainability. This is especially important if your project has or might have contributors from diverse linguistic backgrounds.
Consider changing the test description to English:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {tests/select/manual-focus-blur.spec.ts (1)
3-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The current description "select 组件xdesign规范" is in Chinese. For consistency and to improve readability for non-Chinese speaking developers, consider translating it to English.
Suggested translation:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {tests/select/automatic-dropdown.spec.ts (1)
1-14: Overall assessment: Good start, but needs improvementsThis file provides a basic structure for testing the select component using Playwright. However, there are several areas that need improvement:
- Test suite structure and naming: Consider using English descriptions and adding more test cases to cover various scenarios.
- Error handling and navigation: Implement more robust error handling and use correct navigation URLs.
- Test implementation: Enhance the test case to better match its description, improve assertions, and cover more component behaviors.
By addressing these points, you'll significantly improve the test coverage and reliability of your select component tests.
tests/select/clear-no-match-value.spec.ts (2)
3-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The current description "select 组件xdesign规范" is in Chinese. For better international collaboration and understanding, consider translating it to English and providing more context about what "xdesign规范" means.
For example:
test.describe('Select component xdesign specifications', () => {Also, consider adding a brief comment explaining what "xdesign specifications" refers to in this context.
4-4: Translate the test name to English for consistency.The test name "自动清除不匹配的值--UI截图" is in Chinese. For consistency with coding standards and to improve readability for non-Chinese speakers, consider translating it to English.
For example:
test('Automatically clear non-matching values - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {tests/select/slot-prefix.spec.ts (2)
1-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For consistency and to improve readability for non-Chinese speaking developers, consider translating it to English.
Suggested change:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select Component XDesign Specification', () => {
4-6: Enhance test setup and improve consistency.
- Consider translating the test case title to English for consistency.
- Add an assertion to ensure the page has loaded correctly after navigation.
Suggested changes:
- test('前缀插槽--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { + test('Prefix Slot - UI Screenshot', async ({ page }) => { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) await page.goto('select#slot-prefix') + await expect(page).toHaveURL(/.*select#slot-prefix/)tests/select/no-data-text.spec.ts (4)
3-3: Consider adding an English translation for the test suite name.While the current name "select 组件xdesign规范" is descriptive, adding an English translation would improve readability for non-Chinese speakers. Consider using a bilingual format:
test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范 (Select Component XDesign Specification)', () => { // ... })This change would make the test suite more accessible to a broader audience while maintaining the original Chinese name.
14-14: Address the TODO comment and complete the test implementation.The TODO comment indicates that there are existing functionality issues that need to be addressed. It's important to resolve these issues and complete the test implementation to ensure comprehensive coverage.
Would you like assistance in identifying the specific functionality issues or in developing additional test cases to address them?
4-4: Maintain consistent naming conventions.Consider using English for test case names to maintain consistency with variable names and improve international collaboration. For example:
test('Empty data text - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { // ... })This change would align with the English variable names used in the test body and make the test more accessible to non-Chinese speakers.
1-16: Overall assessment: Good start, but room for improvement.This test file provides a basic visual regression test for the select component, which is a good foundation. However, there are several areas where it could be improved:
- Consistency: Consider using English for all names (test suite, test cases) to improve international collaboration.
- Test coverage: Add more specific assertions to test the component's behavior beyond visual regression.
- TODO resolution: Address the existing functionality issues mentioned in the TODO comment.
- Documentation: Consider adding comments explaining the purpose of each test and any specific setup required.
Implementing these suggestions will result in a more robust and maintainable test suite for the select component.
tests/select/hide-drop.spec.ts (4)
1-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The current description "select 组件xdesign规范" is in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, it's recommended to use English for test descriptions.
Consider changing the description to something like:
test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-7: Improve test case clarity and documentation.
- The test title "隐藏下拉--UI截图" is in Chinese. Consider translating it to English for consistency and clarity.
- The navigation URL 'select#hide-drop' is not fully qualified. It would be helpful to clarify how this relates to the actual page URL.
Consider these changes:
- Translate the test title:
test('Hide dropdown - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
- Add a comment explaining the navigation:
// Navigate to the select component demo page, focusing on the hide-drop example await page.goto('select#hide-drop')
8-11: Remove or utilize the unusedwrapvariable.The
wrapvariable is declared but not used in the current test. If it's not needed for the test, consider removing it to keep the code clean.If the
wrapvariable is not used in the test, remove it:const demo = page.locator('#hide-drop .pc-demo') const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select') -const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap')If it will be used in future assertions, consider adding a TODO comment explaining its intended use.
1-15: Overall feedback on the test fileThis test file provides a good starting point for UI testing of the select component. However, there are several areas where it can be improved:
- Consistency in language use (translating Chinese to English)
- Clarifying navigation and element selection
- Removing unused code
- Significantly expanding test coverage to actually test the "hide dropdown" functionality and other select component behaviors
By addressing these points, you'll create a more robust, maintainable, and effective test suite that aligns better with the PR objectives of adding comprehensive UI test cases for the select component.
Consider creating a set of reusable helper functions for common select component interactions and assertions. This will make it easier to write and maintain multiple test cases as you expand the test suite.
tests/select/cache-usage.spec.ts (2)
1-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For consistency and to improve readability for a wider audience, consider translating it to English.
Here's a suggested translation:
test.describe('select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-5: Translate the test case description to English and use a descriptive name.The test case description is currently in Chinese. For consistency and clarity, consider translating it to English and using a more descriptive name that reflects the purpose of the test.
Here's a suggested translation and improvement:
test('Automatic caching - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {tests/select/clearable.spec.ts (2)
1-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For consistency and to improve readability for non-Chinese speaking developers, consider translating it to English.
Suggested change:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-6: Translate the test case title to English.For consistency and improved readability, consider translating the test case title to English.
Suggested change:
-test('可清除--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test('Clearable - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {tests/select/memoize-usage.spec.ts (2)
1-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For consistency and to improve readability for non-Chinese speaking developers, consider translating it to English.
Suggested change:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-6: Translate test title and good error handling.
- The test title is in Chinese. Consider translating it to English for consistency.
- Great job setting up an error handler to catch unexpected page errors!
Suggested change for the test title:
-test('手动缓存--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test('Manual caching - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {tests/select/slot-empty.spec.ts (2)
1-3: Consider using English for the test suite description.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For consistency and to improve readability for a potentially diverse team, consider using English for all code comments and descriptions.
Suggested change:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-6: Enhance test case setup and navigation.
- Consider using English for the test case title for consistency.
- The URL fragment could be more descriptive to improve test readability.
- Good practice on setting up the error listener.
Suggested changes:
- test('空数据插槽--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { + test('Empty data slot - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) - await page.goto('select#slot-empty') + await page.goto('select#empty-data-slot')tests/select/show-alloption.spec.ts (2)
1-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.While the current test suite description is clear, using English for test descriptions can improve international collaboration and maintainability. Consider changing the description to English:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {This change will make the test suite more accessible to a broader range of developers.
4-7: Enhance test case setup for clarity and robustness.
- Consider using English for the test description to improve readability:
-test('不显示全选--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test('should not display "Select All" option - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
- The URL navigation uses a fragment identifier. Ensure this is the intended behavior for your testing environment. If not, consider using a full URL:
-await page.goto('select#show-alloption') +await page.goto('http://your-test-url.com/select#show-alloption')
- Add a comment explaining the purpose of the error handling for future maintainers:
// Catch and fail the test on any uncaught exceptions or console errors page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull())These changes will improve the test's clarity and maintainability.
tests/select/searchable.spec.ts (5)
1-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For better maintainability and consistency across the project, consider using English for all test descriptions, unless there's a specific requirement for multilingual test suites.
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-6: Good test setup with room for minor improvement.The test case is well-named and includes proper error handling. However, the URL navigation could be more robust.
Consider using a full URL or a constant for better maintainability:
-await page.goto('select#searchable') +await page.goto(`${BASE_URL}/select#searchable`)Ensure
BASE_URLis defined in your test configuration or environment variables.
8-13: Well-structured element selection and viewport check.The code effectively selects the necessary elements and ensures the demo is in the viewport before proceeding. This is a good practice for reliable UI testing.
Consider extracting the selectors into constants at the top of the file for better maintainability:
const SELECTORS = { DEMO: '#searchable .pc-demo', SELECT: '.tiny-select', WRAP: '.docs-tabs-wrap' }; // Then use them in your test: const demo = page.locator(SELECTORS.DEMO); // ... and so on
15-17: Good interaction test with room for naming improvement.The test effectively simulates user interaction by clicking the select component and captures the resulting state. This is crucial for testing dynamic UI components.
Consider using a more descriptive name for the second screenshot:
-await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('unfilter.png') +await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('opened_select.png')This name more clearly indicates the state being captured (the select component in its opened state).
1-18: Overall, well-structured UI test with room for expansion.This test provides a good foundation for testing the searchable select component. It covers the basic functionality of opening the select and captures screenshots for visual comparison.
To further improve the test coverage, consider adding the following test cases:
- Test the search functionality by entering text and verifying filtered results.
- Test selecting an option and verifying the selected state.
- Test keyboard navigation within the select component.
- Test for accessibility compliance, such as proper ARIA attributes.
These additional tests would provide more comprehensive coverage of the component's functionality.
tests/select/allow-create.spec.ts (3)
3-4: Improve test suite and case descriptions.
- Consider using English for consistency if it's the project's primary language:
test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => { test('Allow create functionality - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {- Ensure the test case title accurately reflects its content. The current implementation doesn't explicitly test panel search.
5-5: Enhance error handling for better debugging.Consider logging the error before asserting it to be null. This will provide more information for debugging if an unexpected error occurs:
page.on('pageerror', (exception) => { console.error('Page error:', exception); expect(exception).toBeNull(); });This change will make it easier to identify and debug any unexpected errors that might occur during the test.
1-18: Overall assessment: Good start, but needs expansion.This test file provides a basic foundation for testing the 'allow-create' functionality of the select component. However, to ensure comprehensive coverage and reliability, consider implementing the suggested improvements:
- Expand test cases to cover various scenarios of the 'allow-create' functionality.
- Enhance assertions to verify component behavior after interactions.
- Improve error handling for better debugging.
- Ensure consistent use of language in test descriptions.
These enhancements will significantly improve the test suite's effectiveness in catching potential issues and ensuring the correct implementation of the 'allow-create' feature.
tests/select/popup-style-position.spec.ts (2)
1-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The current description "select 组件xdesign规范" is in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, it's recommended to use English for test descriptions.
Consider changing the description to something like:
test.describe('Select component xdesign specifications', () => {
4-11: Translate the test case title to English for clarity.The current test case title "弹框样式与定位--UI截图" is in Chinese. For consistency and better understanding across team members, it's recommended to use English for test titles.
Consider changing the title to something like:
test('Popup style and positioning - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {tests/select/multiple-mix.spec.ts (3)
1-3: Consider using English for the test suite description.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, it's recommended to use English for all code comments and descriptions.
Consider changing the test suite description to English:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-13: Approve setup with a suggestion for improvement.The test case setup is well-structured with proper error handling and element locators. However, the test case title is in Chinese, which may hinder understanding for non-Chinese speakers.
Consider translating the test case title to English:
-test('仅显示--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { +test('Display only--UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
1-20: Summary and next steps for improving the test suiteThis new test file is a good start towards achieving the PR objective of adding UI test cases for the select component. However, there are several areas where it can be improved:
- Use English consistently throughout the file for better international collaboration.
- Enhance the initial state verification with more specific assertions.
- Add more detailed assertions after user interactions to verify the component's behavior.
- Expand the test coverage to include multi-select functionality, which is implied by the file name.
- Consider adding more test cases to cover different scenarios and edge cases for the select component.
To further improve the test suite:
- Create separate test cases for different functionalities of the select component (e.g., single select, multi-select, searchable options).
- Add tests for keyboard navigation and accessibility.
- Consider testing error states and edge cases (e.g., no options, all options disabled).
- Implement data-driven tests to cover various configurations of the select component.
These improvements will result in a more robust and comprehensive test suite for the select component, aligning well with the PR objectives.
tests/select/filter-method.spec.ts (1)
1-3: Consider providing bilingual test descriptions for better international collaboration.While the current test description in Chinese is valid, adding an English translation or making it bilingual could improve readability and collaboration for non-Chinese speaking team members.
Consider updating the test description as follows:
test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范 (Select component xdesign specification)', () => {tests/select/remote-method.spec.ts (3)
1-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For consistency and to improve readability for non-Chinese speaking developers, consider translating it to English.
Suggested change:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-13: Translate the test case title and approve the initial setup.The test case title is currently in Chinese. For consistency, consider translating it to English. The initial setup and assertions look good.
Suggested change:
- test('远程搜索--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { + test('Remote search - UI screenshots', async ({ page }) => {
15-20: Add assertions to verify remote search functionality.The test interactions look good and effectively simulate user behavior. However, consider adding assertions to verify the actual behavior of the remote search functionality.
Suggested additions:
await select.nth(0).click() await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('unfilter.png') // Add assertion to check if the dropdown is open await expect(select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-select__dropdown')).toBeVisible() await select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-input__inner').fill(' ') await select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-input__inner').press('Enter') // Add assertion to check if the remote search is triggered await expect(select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-select__loading')).toBeVisible() // Add assertion to check if the search results are displayed await expect(select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-select-dropdown__item')).toHaveCount(5) await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('filter.png')tests/select/disabled.spec.ts (1)
1-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The test suite description is currently in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, it's recommended to use English for code comments and descriptions.
Consider changing the description to English:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {tests/select/slot-default.spec.ts (3)
1-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The test suite description "select 组件xdesign规范" is in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, it's recommended to use English for test descriptions.
Consider changing the description to something like:
test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-16: Approve test structure and suggest English translation for test description.The test case is well-structured and follows Playwright best practices. It correctly handles page errors, locates elements, and captures screenshots for both default and interaction states.
Consider translating the test description to English for better international collaboration:
test('With label and prompt information--UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
18-28: Approve test structure and suggest improvements for clarity.The test case is well-structured and follows Playwright best practices. It correctly handles page errors, interacts with elements, and captures a screenshot for verification.
Consider the following improvements:
- Translate the test description to English:
test('Double line --UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
- Use a more descriptive test name that explains what "Double line" refers to in the context of the select component. For example:
test('Select with multi-line options --UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {tests/select/is-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts (1)
1-30: Overall good test coverage with room for improvement.The file provides comprehensive UI tests for the select component, covering both content expansion and width inheritance scenarios. The first test case is well-structured and follows best practices. To maintain consistency and improve reliability across all tests, consider applying the suggested enhancements to the second test case.
Ensuring consistent implementation of error handling, viewport checks, and screenshot captures across all test cases will lead to a more robust and maintainable test suite.
tests/select/nest-tree.spec.ts (3)
3-3: Consider using English for test descriptions.While the current description is clear, using English for test descriptions can improve international collaboration and maintainability. Consider translating the description to English.
Suggested change:
-test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { +test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-17: LGTM with suggestions for improvement.The test case for single tree selection is well-structured and covers basic functionality. However, it could be enhanced for more robust testing:
- Add specific assertions before taking screenshots.
- Consider adding a small wait time before screenshots to ensure UI stability.
- Use more descriptive screenshot filenames.
Here's an example of how you could implement these improvements:
test('Single Tree Selection - UI Screenshot', async ({ page }) => { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) await page.goto('select#nest-tree') const demo = page.locator('#nest-tree .pc-demo') const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select') const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() await expect(select.nth(0)).toBeVisible() await page.waitForTimeout(500) await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('single-tree-select-default.png') await select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner').click() await expect(wrap.locator('.tiny-select-dropdown')).toBeVisible() await page.waitForTimeout(500) await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('single-tree-select-opened.png') })
1-30: Summary: Good foundation with room for improvementOverall, this file provides a good foundation for UI testing of the select component. The use of Playwright and the basic structure of the tests are appropriate. However, there are several areas where the tests can be enhanced:
- Use English for test descriptions to improve international collaboration.
- Enhance both test cases with more specific assertions, consistent structure, and improved screenshot naming.
- Consider adding small wait times before taking screenshots to ensure UI stability.
Implementing these suggestions will result in more robust, consistent, and maintainable tests. Great job on starting these UI tests, and with these improvements, they'll be even more effective at catching potential issues.
tests/select/nest-grid.spec.ts (1)
1-30: Overall assessment: Good start, but needs improvements for comprehensive testing.The introduced tests provide a solid foundation for UI testing of the select component. However, to ensure thorough coverage and robust validation, consider implementing the following improvements:
- Enhance existing test cases with more specific assertions and descriptive screenshot names.
- Add tests for multiple selections in the multi-select scenario.
- Implement additional test cases for keyboard navigation, accessibility, edge cases, and error states.
These enhancements will significantly improve the quality and reliability of the select component tests, aligning them better with best practices in UI testing.
tests/select/nest-grid-remote.spec.ts (3)
4-15: Good test structure, but consider enhancing functionality verification.The test case is well-structured with proper error handling and UI state verification. However, there are a few suggestions for improvement:
The test doesn't verify the actual remote search functionality. Consider adding assertions to check if the search results are displayed correctly after selection.
Add a comment explaining the purpose of the 1-second wait on line 26. If it's waiting for an API response, consider using a more robust waiting mechanism.
Here's a suggested enhancement to verify the search functionality:
// After line 13 await page.waitForResponse(response => response.url().includes('your-api-endpoint')); const searchResults = page.locator('.search-results'); await expect(searchResults).toBeVisible(); await expect(searchResults).toContainText('Expected search result');
17-28: Good test structure, but improve waiting mechanism and add functionality verification.The test case has a good structure and error handling. However, there are several areas for improvement:
The test doesn't verify the actual automatic search functionality. Consider adding assertions to check if the search results are displayed correctly.
The fixed 1-second wait on line 26 might not be reliable across different network conditions. Replace it with a more robust waiting mechanism.
Add comments explaining the purpose of each screenshot for better maintainability.
Here's a suggested enhancement:
// After line 24 await page.waitForResponse(response => response.url().includes('your-api-endpoint')); const searchResults = page.locator('.search-results'); await expect(searchResults).toBeVisible(); // Replace lines 25-27 with: // Screenshot before search results are loaded await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('grid-single-auto-before-results.png'); // Wait for search results to stabilize await expect(searchResults).toContainText('Expected search result'); // Screenshot after search results are loaded await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('grid-single-auto-after-results.png');
1-29: Consider using English for test descriptions and names.While the code structure is good, using Chinese for test descriptions and names might make it difficult for non-Chinese speakers to understand and maintain the tests. If this project involves or might involve international collaboration, consider using English for better accessibility.
Here's an example of how you could rename the test suite and cases in English:
test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => { test('Grid remote search single select - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { // ... }) test('Grid remote search single select with auto-search - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { // ... }) })tests/select/nest-grid-disable.spec.ts (4)
3-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.The current description '组件xdesign规范' is in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, it's recommended to use English for test descriptions.
Consider changing the description to something like:
test.describe('Select component xdesign specification', () => {
4-17: Translate test description to English and LGTM for test structure.The test case is well-structured and follows good practices. However, the description '表格禁用单选--UI截图' is in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, it's recommended to use English for test descriptions.
Consider changing the test description to something like:
test('Disabled single selection in table - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {The rest of the test case looks good:
- Error handling is set up correctly.
- Navigation and element location are done properly.
- Screenshots are captured at appropriate points.
19-30: Translate test description, consider refactoring, and LGTM for test structure.The test case is well-structured and follows good practices. However, there are a few points to consider:
The description '表格禁用多选--UI截图' is in Chinese. For better international collaboration and maintainability, it's recommended to use English for test descriptions.
There's significant code duplication between this test and the previous one. Consider refactoring common setup code into a separate function or using Playwright's
test.beforeEach().Consider changing the test description to:
test('Disabled multiple selection in table - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
- To reduce duplication, consider refactoring like this:
const setupTest = async (page) => { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) await page.goto('select#nest-grid-disable') const demo = page.locator('#nest-grid-disable .pc-demo') const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select') const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') return { demo, select, wrap } } test('Disabled single selection in table - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { const { demo, select, wrap } = await setupTest(page) // ... rest of the test }) test('Disabled multiple selection in table - UI screenshot', async ({ page }) => { const { select, wrap } = await setupTest(page) // ... rest of the test })This refactoring will make the tests more maintainable and reduce the risk of inconsistencies between test setups.
1-30: Overall: Well-structured tests with room for minor improvements.The tests are well-written and cover important UI scenarios for the select component. The use of screenshots for UI testing is an excellent approach for catching visual regressions. However, there are a few suggestions for improvement:
Consider adding explicit verification of the "disabled" state. While the screenshots will catch visual differences, it might be beneficial to programmatically verify that the select components are indeed disabled.
As mentioned in previous comments, translating test descriptions to English and refactoring common setup code would improve maintainability and collaboration.
To verify the disabled state, you could add assertions like:
await expect(select.nth(0)).toBeDisabled() await expect(select.nth(1)).toBeDisabled()These assertions would provide an additional layer of confidence that the components are in the correct state before taking screenshots.
tests/select/map-field.spec.ts (1)
3-3: Consider translating the test suite description to English.To improve international collaboration and maintain consistency with coding standards, it's recommended to use English for test descriptions.
Here's a suggested translation:
test.describe('Select component xdesign specifications', () => {tests/select/multiple.spec.ts (2)
4-16: Remove unnecessary comment and LGTM for the rest.The test setup is well-structured with proper error handling and element selection. However, there's an unnecessary commented line that can be removed.
Please remove the following commented line:
- // await expect(select).toBeInViewport()The rest of the setup looks good and follows best practices.
38-39: Create an issue for tracking remaining work.Instead of using a vague TODO comment in the code, it's better to create a specific issue in your project's issue tracker to manage and track the remaining work for additional demos.
Replace the TODO comment with a reference to the created issue:
// Additional test cases tracked in issue #<issue_number>This approach will provide better visibility and tracking for the remaining work.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files ignored due to path filters (95)
tests/select/allow-create.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/allow-create.spec.ts-snapshots/top-create-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/default1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/hover1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/item-checked-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/item-checked1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/item-click-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/item-click1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/item-hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/item-hover1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/binding-obj.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/cache-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/clear-no-match-value.spec.ts-snapshots/clear-no-match-value-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/clearable.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/clearable.spec.ts-snapshots/hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/click-expand2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/default1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/default2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/hover1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-checked-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-checked1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-checked2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-click-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-click1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-click2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-hover1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/item-hover2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts-snapshots/unexpand2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/copy-multi.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/copy-single.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/disabled.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/disabled.spec.ts-snapshots/hover1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/disabled.spec.ts-snapshots/hover2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/disabled.spec.ts-snapshots/hover3-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/filter-method.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/filter-method.spec.ts-snapshots/filter-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/filter-method.spec.ts-snapshots/unfilter-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/hide-drop.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/input-box-type.spec.ts-snapshots/input-box-type-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/is-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts-snapshots/auto-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/is-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/is-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts-snapshots/inherit-width-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/map-field.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/map-field.spec.ts-snapshots/map-field-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/map-field.spec.ts-snapshots/map-field-grid-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/memoize-usage.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/multiple-mix.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/multiple-mix.spec.ts-snapshots/display-only-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/multiple.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/multiple.spec.ts-snapshots/hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/multiple.spec.ts-snapshots/item-checked-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/multiple.spec.ts-snapshots/item-click-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/multiple.spec.ts-snapshots/item-hover-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid-disable.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid-disable.spec.ts-snapshots/grid-multiple-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid-disable.spec.ts-snapshots/grid-single-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid-remote.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid-remote.spec.ts-snapshots/grid-single-auto-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid-remote.spec.ts-snapshots/grid-single-auto1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid-remote.spec.ts-snapshots/grid-single-remote-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid.spec.ts-snapshots/grid-multiple-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-grid.spec.ts-snapshots/grid-single-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-tree.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-tree.spec.ts-snapshots/tree-multiple-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/nest-tree.spec.ts-snapshots/tree-single-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/optimization.spec.ts-snapshots/optimization-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/option-group.spec.ts-snapshots/group0-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/option-group.spec.ts-snapshots/group1-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/option-group.spec.ts-snapshots/group2-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/option-group.spec.ts-snapshots/group3-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/popup-style-position.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/popup-style-position.spec.ts-snapshots/popup-style-position-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/remote-method.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/remote-method.spec.ts-snapshots/filter-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/remote-method.spec.ts-snapshots/unfilter-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/s-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts-snapshots/auto-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/s-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/s-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts-snapshots/inherit-width-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/searchable.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/searchable.spec.ts-snapshots/unfilter-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/show-alloption.spec.ts-snapshots/show-alloption-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/size.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/slot-default.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/slot-default.spec.ts-snapshots/double-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/slot-default.spec.ts-snapshots/has-tag-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/slot-empty.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/slot-label.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/slot-prefix.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.pngtests/select/tag-type.spec.ts-snapshots/default-chromium-win32.pngis excluded by!**/*.png
Files selected for processing (38)
- tests/select/allow-create.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/automatic-dropdown.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/binding-obj.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/cache-usage.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/clear-no-match-value.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/clearable.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/collapse-tags.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/copy-multi.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/copy-single.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/disabled.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/filter-method.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/hide-drop.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/input-box-type.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/is-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/manual-focus-blur.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/map-field.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/memoize-usage.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/multiple-mix.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/multiple.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/native-properties.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/nest-grid-disable.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/nest-grid-remote.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/nest-grid.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/nest-tree.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/no-data-text.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/optimization.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/option-group.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/popup-style-position.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/remote-method.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/searchable.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/show-alloption.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/size.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/slot-default.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/slot-empty.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/slot-label.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/slot-prefix.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/select/tag-type.spec.ts (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (42)
tests/select/tag-type.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and appropriate.The necessary imports from '@playwright/test' are correctly included for writing Playwright tests.
tests/select/slot-label.spec.ts (2)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct.The necessary Playwright test utilities are properly imported.
3-4: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionEnhance test suite structure and use English descriptions.
Consider the following improvements:
- Use English for test descriptions to facilitate international collaboration.
- Structure the test suite to allow for easy addition of more test cases.
Here's a suggested refactor:
test.describe('Select Component xDesign Specification', () => { test.describe('Label Slot', () => { test('UI Screenshot - Default State', async ({ page }) => { // ... (existing test case implementation) }) // Additional test cases can be added here // For example: // test('UI Screenshot - Expanded State', async ({ page }) => { ... }) // test('UI Screenshot - Disabled State', async ({ page }) => { ... }) }) })This structure improves readability and sets up for easy expansion of the test suite.
tests/select/copy-multi.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and sufficient.The necessary Playwright test utilities are imported correctly.
tests/select/copy-single.spec.ts (1)
1-3: LGTM: Proper test setup and suite declaration.The import statement and test suite declaration are correct and follow Playwright testing conventions. The test suite description accurately reflects the component and specification being tested.
tests/select/optimization.spec.ts (1)
6-9: Approve element selection and suggest URL verification.The element selection using locators is appropriate. However, the URL for navigation seems incomplete.
Please verify if the URL 'select#optimization' is correct and complete. If it's a relative URL, ensure that the base URL is set correctly in the Playwright configuration.
Also, consider adding some interaction with the select component to test the "automatic clearing of non-matching values" as mentioned in the test title.
tests/select/native-properties.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct.The necessary imports from '@playwright/test' are present for writing Playwright tests.
tests/select/manual-focus-blur.spec.ts (2)
12-12: Enhance screenshot capture process as per previous suggestions.A previous review comment suggested improvements to the screenshot capture process. These suggestions are still relevant and would enhance the test's effectiveness.
As previously suggested:
- Capture screenshots for different states (default, focused, blurred).
- Use more descriptive names for the screenshots.
Example implementation:
-await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default.png') +await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('select-default.png') + +await select.focus(); +await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('select-focused.png') + +await select.evaluate(el => el.blur()); +await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('select-blurred.png')
1-14: Overall assessment: Good foundation, needs refinementThis test file provides a good starting point for testing the select component's focus and blur functionality. However, there are a few areas that need improvement:
- The test suite description should be in English for consistency.
- The test case should implement actual focus and blur actions to match its title.
- The screenshot capture process should be enhanced to cover different states of the component.
Implementing these changes will result in a more comprehensive and effective test for the select component's manual focus and blur functionality.
tests/select/automatic-dropdown.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and appropriate.The necessary imports from '@playwright/test' are present for writing Playwright tests.
tests/select/clear-no-match-value.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct.The necessary imports from Playwright's testing framework are present.
tests/select/no-data-text.spec.ts (2)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and necessary.The imports from '@playwright/test' are appropriate for writing Playwright tests.
4-5: Good practice: Error listener implementation.The error listener setup is a good practice for catching unexpected errors during test execution. This helps in identifying and debugging issues that might otherwise go unnoticed.
tests/select/cache-usage.spec.ts (2)
8-12: Add assertion to verify select component interaction.The test clicks on the select component but doesn't verify if it opened successfully. Adding an assertion would make the test more robust.
As suggested in a previous review, consider adding an assertion after the click:
await select.click() await expect(select).toHaveClass(/tiny-select--open/) // Adjust the class name as per your implementationThis ensures that the select component responds correctly to the click interaction.
13-15: Enhance test coverage for caching behavior and clarify screenshot purpose.While the test checks for visual consistency, it doesn't explicitly verify the caching behavior mentioned in the test title. Additionally, the purpose of the screenshot comparison isn't clear from the context.
As suggested in a previous review:
- Add assertions to verify caching behavior. For example:
// Perform an action that should trigger caching await select.click() await select.locator('option').nth(1).click() // Close and reopen the select await page.click('body') // Click outside to close await select.click() // Verify that the previously selected option is still selected (cached) await expect(select.locator('.tiny-select__selected-text')).toHaveText('Expected Cached Value')
- Add a comment explaining the purpose of the screenshot comparison:
// Verify the visual state of the select component after caching await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('default.png')These changes will make the test more comprehensive and its purpose clearer.
tests/select/clearable.spec.ts (2)
6-6: Consider using a more robust navigation method.The current navigation method uses a URL fragment, which might be brittle if the URL structure changes. As suggested in a previous review, consider using a more robust method.
Suggested approach:
await page.goto('your-base-url'); await page.click('text=Select Component'); await page.click('text=Clearable');This approach is more resilient to changes in URL structure and provides a clearer picture of the navigation flow.
8-11: LGTM: Component locators and viewport check.The locators for the demo area and select component are well-defined. Checking if the demo is in the viewport before proceeding with the test is a good practice to ensure the component is visible and interactable.
tests/select/slot-empty.spec.ts (2)
8-12: Element selection and viewport check look good.The element selection using appropriate locators and the viewport check before interaction are good practices. This ensures that the test interacts with visible elements, reducing the chance of flaky tests.
13-14: Add specific assertions before screenshot comparison.While the screenshot comparison is valuable for visual regression testing, adding more specific assertions about the component's state or behavior before taking the screenshot would enhance the test's robustness and provide more detailed feedback in case of failures.
Consider adding assertions to check the component's state after clicking, for example:
await select.nth(0).click() await expect(select.nth(0)).toHaveAttribute('aria-expanded', 'true') await expect(page.locator('.tiny-select-dropdown')).toBeVisible() // Then proceed with the screenshot comparison await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('default.png')tests/select/show-alloption.spec.ts (1)
15-17: Implement suggested improvements for screenshot naming and documentation.A previous review comment suggested improvements for screenshot naming and documentation. These suggestions are still valid and would enhance the test's maintainability. Please implement the following changes:
- Use a more descriptive name for the screenshot:
-await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('show-alloption.png') +await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('select_without_select_all_option.png')
- Add a comment explaining how to update the reference screenshot:
// To update the reference screenshot: // 1. Run the test with the `--update-snapshots` flag // 2. Review the changes to ensure they are intentional // 3. Commit the updated screenshot to version control await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('select_without_select_all_option.png')These changes will improve the clarity and maintainability of the test.
tests/select/searchable.spec.ts (1)
13-13: Appropriate baseline screenshot capture.Capturing a screenshot of the default state provides a good baseline for visual regression testing. The screenshot name 'default.png' is clear and descriptive.
tests/select/allow-create.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and sufficient.The necessary Playwright test utilities are imported correctly.
tests/select/popup-style-position.spec.ts (1)
12-17: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionExpand test coverage for comprehensive validation.
The current test provides a good foundation for UI testing of the select component. However, to ensure more robust coverage, consider implementing additional test cases as suggested in the previous review:
- Verify the popup closes correctly when clicking outside.
- Test selecting an option and verify the selected value is displayed correctly.
- Test keyboard navigation within the select options.
- Verify the behavior with different numbers of options.
- Test any custom styling or themes if applicable.
These additional tests will help ensure the component behaves correctly under various scenarios.
tests/select/multiple-mix.spec.ts (1)
17-19: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionEnhance test case with specific assertions and interactions.
While simulating user interaction and taking screenshots are good practices, the test case could be improved by adding specific assertions to verify the component's behavior after the interaction.
Consider implementing the following improvements:
- Add assertions to check for specific changes after the button click:
await demo.locator('.tiny-button').nth(0).click() // Assert that the select component is open await expect(select).toHaveClass(/tiny-select--open/) // Assert that the dropdown menu is visible await expect(menu).toBeVisible() // Assert that at least one option is visible in the dropdown await expect(menu.locator('.tiny-select-dropdown__item')).toHaveCount(1) await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default.png')
- Add a test for selecting an option and verifying the selection:
// Select the first option await menu.locator('.tiny-select-dropdown__item').first().click() // Assert that the selected option is reflected in the select component const selectedValue = await select.locator('.tiny-select__selected-value').textContent() expect(selectedValue).toBeTruthy() // Take a screenshot of the final state await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('option-selected.png')
- Test multi-select functionality:
// Select another option await menu.locator('.tiny-select-dropdown__item').nth(1).click() // Assert that multiple options are selected const selectedValues = await select.locator('.tiny-select__selected-value').all() expect(selectedValues.length).toBeGreaterThan(1) // Take a screenshot of the multi-select state await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('multiple-options-selected.png')These additions will make the test more robust and informative about the component's behavior, especially considering the multi-select nature of this particular test case.
tests/select/filter-method.spec.ts (3)
4-10: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionImprove robustness of page navigation
The current navigation method uses a URL fragment, which might be fragile if the URL structure changes. Consider using a more robust method for page navigation, such as environment variables or configuration files to store and manage URLs.
Example of a more robust navigation approach:
const { testUrlBase } = process.env; await page.goto(`${testUrlBase}/select#filter-method`);
12-16: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionAdd assertions to verify select dropdown state
While capturing screenshots is useful for visual regression testing, it's also important to assert the state of the UI elements programmatically. Consider adding assertions to verify that the select dropdown is open after clicking.
Example of additional assertions:
await select.nth(0).click(); await expect(select.nth(0)).toHaveClass(/is-open/); // Assuming the open state is indicated by a class await expect(select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-select__dropdown')).toBeVisible(); await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('unfilter.png');
18-21: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionEnhance filter testing and parameterize filter value
The current test captures a screenshot after filtering but doesn't programmatically verify the filtering results. Additionally, the hardcoded filter value '北京' might make the test less flexible.
Consider the following improvements:
- Add assertions to verify the filtering results:
const filterValue = '北京'; await select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-input__inner').fill(filterValue); await select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-input__inner').press('Enter'); await expect(select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-select__dropdown-item')).toContainText(filterValue); await expect(select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-select__dropdown-item:not(:has-text("' + filterValue + '"))')).toHaveCount(0); await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('filter.png');
- Consider parameterizing the filter value for more flexible testing:
const testCases = ['北京', 'Beijing', '上海', 'Shanghai']; for (const filterValue of testCases) { test(`可过滤--UI截图 (Filter value: ${filterValue})`, async ({ page }) => { // ... (rest of the test code) await select.nth(0).locator('.tiny-input__inner').fill(filterValue); // ... (assertions) }); }tests/select/is-drop-inherit-width.spec.ts (1)
4-17: Well-structured and comprehensive UI test case.This test case for the select component's content expansion is well-implemented. It includes proper error handling, navigation, viewport checks, and screenshot comparisons before and after interaction. The structure follows best practices for UI testing.
tests/select/nest-tree.spec.ts (2)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and sufficient.The necessary imports from Playwright are present, which is good for writing and executing the tests.
19-29:⚠️ Potential issueEnhance the second test case for consistency and completeness.
The test case for multiple tree selection could be improved to be more comprehensive and consistent with the first test case. The suggestions from the previous review are still valid:
- Add a check for demo visibility.
- Take a default screenshot before interaction.
- Add more specific assertions before taking screenshots.
- Use more descriptive screenshot filenames.
- Add a small wait time before taking screenshots.
Here's an example of how you could implement these improvements:
test('Multiple Tree Selection - UI Screenshot', async ({ page }) => { page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) await page.goto('select#nest-tree') const demo = page.locator('#nest-tree .pc-demo') const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select') const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() await expect(select.nth(1)).toBeVisible() await page.waitForTimeout(500) await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('multiple-tree-select-default.png') await select.nth(1).locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner').click() await expect(wrap.locator('.tiny-select-dropdown')).toBeVisible() await page.waitForTimeout(500) await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('multiple-tree-select-opened.png') })tests/select/nest-grid.spec.ts (1)
1-3: LGTM: Proper test setup and suite declaration.The import statement and test suite declaration are correctly implemented. The use of Chinese in the test suite description is consistent with the test case titles, which is good for maintaining language consistency throughout the test file.
tests/select/nest-grid-disable.spec.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and concise.The necessary imports from Playwright are present, and there are no unused imports.
tests/select/map-field.spec.ts (2)
1-1: LGTM: Imports are correct and concise.The necessary Playwright test utilities are imported correctly.
1-33: Overall, good addition of UI tests for the select component.This PR successfully introduces UI test cases for the select component, aligning with the stated objectives. The tests cover various interactions and utilize screenshot comparisons for visual regression testing, which is a valuable approach.
Key strengths:
- Comprehensive coverage of select component interactions.
- Use of visual regression testing with screenshots.
- Error handling to catch unexpected page errors.
Areas for improvement have been noted in previous comments, primarily focusing on code structure, reducing duplication, and internationalization. Addressing these suggestions will further enhance the quality and maintainability of the tests.
Great job on expanding the test coverage for the select component!
tests/select/multiple.spec.ts (4)
1-3: LGTM: Proper test setup and structure.The import statements and test description are correctly implemented, following Playwright best practices.
18-20: Implement a more robust waiting mechanism.As suggested in a previous review, using a fixed timeout can make the test flaky. Consider implementing a more reliable waiting mechanism.
Please refer to the previous suggestion:
await page.waitForSelector('.hover-state-class', { state: 'attached' }) // or await page.waitForFunction(() => { const element = document.querySelector('.tiny-select'); return window.getComputedStyle(element).getPropertyValue('transition') === 'none'; })This approach will make the test more reliable and potentially faster.
22-27: Implement consistent and robust waiting mechanisms.As previously suggested, replace the hardcoded timeouts with more reliable waiting mechanisms throughout the test.
Please refer to the previous suggestion:
await suffix.nth(0).click() await menu.waitFor({ state: 'visible' }) // And after hovering over an item: await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(2).hover() await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(2).waitFor({ state: 'hover' })This approach will make the test more consistent and reliable across different execution environments.
29-35: Add assertions and improve waiting mechanisms.The test lacks assertions to verify the selected state, and continues to use fixed timeouts. Implement the previously suggested improvements to enhance test reliability.
Please refer to the previous suggestion and implement similar improvements:
await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(3).click() await expect(menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(3)).toHaveClass(/is-selected/) await suffix.nth(0).click() await menu.waitFor({ state: 'hidden' }) await expect(select).toContainText('Option 4') // Assuming the 4th option was clicked await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-checked.png')These changes will make the test more robust by verifying the selected state and using proper waiting mechanisms.
tests/select/option-group.spec.ts (2)
1-3: LGTM: Imports and test structure are appropriate.The imports from '@playwright/test' and the use of
test.describefor grouping tests follow best practices for Playwright testing.
1-59: Overall assessment: Good coverage, but needs refactoring.The new UI tests for the select component provide good coverage for various scenarios. However, there are opportunities for improvement:
- Refactor the tests to reduce code duplication, as suggested in the previous comments.
- Enhance error handling and add more specific assertions to improve test robustness.
- Consider adding comments to explain the purpose of each test case and any complex logic.
These changes will make the tests more maintainable, easier to understand, and more reliable. Great job on adding these UI tests, and with these improvements, they'll be even more valuable to the project.
tests/select/basic-usage.spec.ts (2)
1-3: LGTM: Imports and test structureThe imports from '@playwright/test' and the use of
test.describefor grouping tests are correct and follow Playwright best practices.
1-72: Overall assessment: Good foundation with room for improvementThe tests provide comprehensive coverage of the select component's UI interactions, which is commendable. However, implementing the suggested improvements will significantly enhance the tests' reliability, maintainability, and readability:
- Replace fixed timeouts with Playwright's built-in waiting mechanisms.
- Refactor common steps into reusable functions.
- Use data attributes for more resilient element selection.
- Improve screenshot naming conventions.
- Enhance error handling for better debugging.
These changes will result in more robust and maintainable tests, reducing the likelihood of flaky tests and making future updates easier.
| import { expect, test } from '@playwright/test' | ||
|
|
||
| test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using English for test descriptions and improving test suite structure.
While the import statements are correct, the test suite description is in Chinese, which may hinder international collaboration. Consider the following improvements:
- Use English for all test descriptions.
- Provide a more descriptive name for the test suite.
Example:
import { expect, test } from '@playwright/test'
test.describe('Select Component Size Variations (xDesign Specifications)', () => {
// Test cases will go here
});This change aligns with best practices for maintaining readable and internationally accessible test suites.
| test('尺寸--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { | ||
| page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) | ||
| await page.goto('select#size') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance test case structure and improve navigation.
Consider the following improvements:
- Use English for the test case description.
- Ensure the navigation URL is complete and correct.
- Add more test cases to cover different size variations.
Example:
test('Default Size - UI Screenshot', async ({ page }) => {
page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull());
await page.goto('http://your-base-url/select#size');
// ... (rest of the test code)
});
test('Small Size - UI and Functionality', async ({ page }) => {
// ... (test small size)
});
test('Large Size - UI and Functionality', async ({ page }) => {
// ... (test large size)
});These changes will improve test readability and coverage of the select component's size variations.
| const demo = page.locator('#size .pc-demo') | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default.png') | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve test robustness with additional assertions and interactions.
While the current implementation provides a basic check, consider enhancing it with the following:
-
Add more specific checks before taking the screenshot:
const selectElement = demo.locator('select'); await expect(selectElement).toBeVisible(); await expect(selectElement).toHaveAttribute('size', 'default');
-
Include interaction tests:
await selectElement.click(); await expect(selectElement).toBeFocused();
-
Add specific assertions about the component's size:
const computedStyle = await selectElement.evaluate((el) => window.getComputedStyle(el).getPropertyValue('height') ); expect(computedStyle).toBe('32px'); // Adjust the expected value as per your design
-
Consider testing multiple size variations within this test case or in separate test cases.
These additions will make the test more robust and less reliant on potentially brittle screenshot comparisons.
| test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { | ||
| test('标签类型设置--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider improving test suite structure and using English for descriptions.
While the test suite structure follows Playwright conventions, there are opportunities for improvement:
- Use English for test descriptions to facilitate international collaboration.
- Consider adding more test cases to cover different aspects of the select component.
Here's a suggested improvement:
test.describe('Select Component XDesign Specification', () => {
test('UI screenshot for tag type setting', async ({ page }) => {
// ... (test implementation)
})
// Add more test cases here
// test('Another aspect of select component', async ({ page }) => { ... })
})| import { expect, test } from '@playwright/test' | ||
|
|
||
| test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { | ||
| test('标签类型设置--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { | ||
| page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) | ||
| await page.goto('select#tag-type') | ||
|
|
||
| const demo = page.locator('#tag-type .pc-demo') | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default.png') | ||
| }) | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider expanding the test suite with additional test cases.
The current test file provides a good starting point for testing the select component's tag type setting. However, to fully align with the PR objectives of adding "UI test cases" (plural), consider expanding the test suite to cover more aspects of the select component. Some suggestions:
- Test different tag type settings if applicable.
- Add tests for user interactions (e.g., selecting options, searching if applicable).
- Include tests for edge cases or specific behaviors mentioned in the component's specifications.
Example of additional test cases:
test('Select option interaction', async ({ page }) => {
// Test user selecting an option
})
test('Multi-select functionality', async ({ page }) => {
// Test selecting multiple options if applicable
})
// Add more test cases as neededThis expansion will provide more comprehensive coverage of the select component's functionality.
| import { expect, test } from '@playwright/test' | ||
|
|
||
| test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider improving test structure and organization.
While the current structure is functional, consider the following improvements:
- Extract common setup code into a
beforeEach()block or a custom fixture to reduce duplication across test cases. - Create helper functions for common operations like "click and wait for menu" or "hover and capture screenshot".
- Use parameterized tests to reduce duplication between similar test cases.
These changes would improve maintainability and readability of the test suite.
| test('多选折叠tag默认--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { | ||
| page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) | ||
| await page.goto('select#collapse-tags') | ||
|
|
||
| const demo = page.locator('#collapse-tags .pc-demo') | ||
| const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select').nth(0) | ||
| const suffix = select.locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner') | ||
| const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') | ||
| const menu = page.locator('body > .tiny-select-dropdown').nth(0) | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await select.hover() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('hover.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await suffix.nth(0).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
|
|
||
| await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(2).hover() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-hover.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(3).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-click.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await suffix.nth(0).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-checked.png') | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance test reliability and readability.
Consider the following improvements:
-
Replace
page.waitForTimeout()with more stable waiting mechanisms, such aswaitForSelector()orwaitForLoadState(). This will make the tests more reliable across different execution environments. -
Add comments to explain the purpose of each step in the test. This will make it easier for other developers to understand and maintain the test.
-
Use more descriptive names for screenshots, including the test case name and the specific state being captured. For example,
default.pngcould bemulti_select_default_state.png.
Here's an example of how you could refactor the beginning of the test:
test('多选折叠tag默认--UI截图', async ({ page }) => {
page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull())
await page.goto('select#collapse-tags')
// Set up locators
const demo = page.locator('#collapse-tags .pc-demo')
const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select').nth(0)
const suffix = select.locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner')
const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap')
const menu = page.locator('body > .tiny-select-dropdown').nth(0)
// Verify initial state
await expect(demo).toBeInViewport()
await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('multi_select_default_state.png')
// Test hover state
await select.hover()
await select.waitFor({ state: 'stable' })
await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('multi_select_hover_state.png')
// Continue with the rest of the test...
}These changes will improve the reliability and readability of the test case.
| test('hoverExpand 折叠tag--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { | ||
| page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) | ||
| await page.goto('select#collapse-tags') | ||
|
|
||
| const demo = page.locator('#collapse-tags .pc-demo') | ||
| const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select').nth(1) | ||
| const suffix = select.locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner') | ||
| const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') | ||
| const menu = page.locator('body > .tiny-select-dropdown').nth(0) | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default1.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await select.hover() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('hover1.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await suffix.nth(0).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
|
|
||
| await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(2).hover() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-hover1.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(3).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-click1.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await suffix.nth(0).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-checked1.png') | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Reduce code duplication and improve test structure.
This test case is very similar to the first one, which indicates an opportunity for refactoring:
- Extract common setup code into a
beforeEach()block or a custom fixture. - Create helper functions for common operations like "click and wait for menu" or "hover and capture screenshot".
- Use parameterized tests to reduce duplication between similar test cases.
Here's an example of how you could refactor this:
import { test as base, expect, Locator } from '@playwright/test';
interface SelectTestFixtures {
setupSelect: (index: number) => Promise<{
demo: Locator;
select: Locator;
suffix: Locator;
wrap: Locator;
menu: Locator;
}>;
}
const test = base.extend<SelectTestFixtures>({
setupSelect: async ({ page }, use) => {
await use(async (index: number) => {
await page.goto('select#collapse-tags');
const demo = page.locator('#collapse-tags .pc-demo');
const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select').nth(index);
const suffix = select.locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner');
const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap');
const menu = page.locator('body > .tiny-select-dropdown').nth(0);
return { demo, select, suffix, wrap, menu };
});
},
});
test.describe('select 组件xdesign规范', () => {
for (const [index, name] of [[0, 'default'], [1, 'hoverExpand']]) {
test(`${name} 折叠tag--UI截图`, async ({ setupSelect }) => {
const { demo, select, suffix, wrap, menu } = await setupSelect(index);
// Test default state
await expect(demo).toBeInViewport();
await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot(`${name}_default_state.png`);
// Test hover state
await select.hover();
await select.waitFor({ state: 'stable' });
await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot(`${name}_hover_state.png`);
// Continue with other test steps...
});
}
});This refactoring reduces duplication, improves readability, and makes it easier to add or modify test cases in the future.
| test('clickExpand 折叠tag--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { | ||
| page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) | ||
| await page.goto('select#collapse-tags') | ||
|
|
||
| const demo = page.locator('#collapse-tags .pc-demo') | ||
| const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select').nth(2) | ||
| const suffix = select.locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner') | ||
| const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') | ||
| const menu = page.locator('body > .tiny-select-dropdown').nth(0) | ||
| const collapseButton = select.locator('.tiny-select__tags-collapse') | ||
|
|
||
| // 默认显示2行 | ||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default2.png') | ||
|
|
||
| // 点击展开 | ||
| await collapseButton.click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('click-expand2.png') | ||
|
|
||
| // 点击收起 | ||
| await select.locator('.tiny-select__collapse-text').click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('unexpand2.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await suffix.nth(0).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
|
|
||
| await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(2).hover() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-hover2.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(3).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-click2.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await suffix.nth(0).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-checked2.png') | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve test structure and reduce duplication for the clickExpand test.
This test case introduces new interactions specific to the clickExpand functionality. While it's good that it tests this unique feature, there are still opportunities for improvement:
- Utilize the common setup and interaction patterns suggested in the previous comments.
- Clearly comment the new interactions (expand and collapse) to explain their purpose.
- Consider creating a separate describe block for the clickExpand functionality to group related tests.
Here's an example of how you could refactor this test case:
test.describe('clickExpand 折叠tag', () => {
let demo: Locator, select: Locator, suffix: Locator, wrap: Locator, menu: Locator, collapseButton: Locator;
test.beforeEach(async ({ setupSelect }) => {
({ demo, select, suffix, wrap, menu } = await setupSelect(2));
collapseButton = select.locator('.tiny-select__tags-collapse');
});
test('默认显示2行', async () => {
await expect(demo).toBeInViewport();
await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('clickExpand_default_state.png');
});
test('点击展开和收起', async () => {
// Expand tags
await collapseButton.click();
await select.waitFor({ state: 'stable' });
await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('clickExpand_expanded_state.png');
// Collapse tags
await select.locator('.tiny-select__collapse-text').click();
await select.waitFor({ state: 'stable' });
await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('clickExpand_collapsed_state.png');
});
test('选择操作', async () => {
// Open dropdown
await suffix.click();
await menu.waitFor({ state: 'visible' });
// Hover over option
await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(2).hover();
await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('clickExpand_option_hover.png');
// Select option
await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(3).click();
await select.waitFor({ state: 'stable' });
await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('clickExpand_option_selected.png');
// Close dropdown
await suffix.click();
await menu.waitFor({ state: 'hidden' });
await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('clickExpand_final_state.png');
});
});This refactoring improves the structure of the test, makes it more readable, and reduces duplication while still testing all the necessary interactions.
| const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') | ||
| const menu = page.locator('body > .tiny-select-dropdown').nth(0) | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await select.hover() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('hover.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await suffix.nth(0).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
|
|
||
| await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(2).hover() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-hover.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(3).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-click.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await suffix.nth(0).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-checked.png') | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| test('hoverExpand 折叠tag--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { | ||
| page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) | ||
| await page.goto('select#collapse-tags') | ||
|
|
||
| const demo = page.locator('#collapse-tags .pc-demo') | ||
| const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select').nth(1) | ||
| const suffix = select.locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner') | ||
| const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') | ||
| const menu = page.locator('body > .tiny-select-dropdown').nth(0) | ||
|
|
||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default1.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await select.hover() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('hover1.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await suffix.nth(0).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
|
|
||
| await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(2).hover() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-hover1.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(3).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-click1.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await suffix.nth(0).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-checked1.png') | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| test('clickExpand 折叠tag--UI截图', async ({ page }) => { | ||
| page.on('pageerror', (exception) => expect(exception).toBeNull()) | ||
| await page.goto('select#collapse-tags') | ||
|
|
||
| const demo = page.locator('#collapse-tags .pc-demo') | ||
| const select = demo.locator('.tiny-select').nth(2) | ||
| const suffix = select.locator('.tiny-input__suffix-inner') | ||
| const wrap = page.locator('.docs-tabs-wrap') | ||
| const menu = page.locator('body > .tiny-select-dropdown').nth(0) | ||
| const collapseButton = select.locator('.tiny-select__tags-collapse') | ||
|
|
||
| // 默认显示2行 | ||
| await expect(demo).toBeInViewport() | ||
| await expect(demo).toHaveScreenshot('default2.png') | ||
|
|
||
| // 点击展开 | ||
| await collapseButton.click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('click-expand2.png') | ||
|
|
||
| // 点击收起 | ||
| await select.locator('.tiny-select__collapse-text').click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('unexpand2.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await suffix.nth(0).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
|
|
||
| await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(2).hover() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-hover2.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await menu.locator('.tiny-option').nth(3).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-click2.png') | ||
|
|
||
| await suffix.nth(0).click() | ||
| await page.waitForTimeout(200) | ||
| await expect(wrap).toHaveScreenshot('item-checked2.png') | ||
| }) | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Overall improvements for the test suite
The test suite provides good coverage for the select component with collapsing tags. However, there are several areas where it can be improved:
-
Reduce duplication: Extract common setup and interaction patterns into helper functions or fixtures.
-
Improve reliability: Replace
page.waitForTimeout()with more stable waiting mechanisms likewaitForSelector()orwaitForLoadState(). -
Enhance readability: Add comments to explain the purpose of each step in the tests and use more descriptive names for screenshots.
-
Optimize structure: Consider using parameterized tests for similar scenarios and separate describe blocks for distinct functionalities.
-
Consistent naming: Use a consistent naming convention for screenshot files across all tests.
By implementing these improvements, the test suite will become more maintainable, reliable, and easier to understand for other developers.
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
Documentation
Tests