Introduce Functional Tests using Playwright and Behave #31
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
AdamHawtin
force-pushed
the
playwright-functional-tests-CMS-198
branch
from
67ff194 to
47902ad
Compare
AdamHawtin
changed the title
AdamHawtin
force-pushed
the
playwright-functional-tests-CMS-198
branch
from
8a307ea to
05a8a7a
Compare
Add dependencies
Add missing dependency Ignore pylint false negative Playwright install in action and try to understand if we have pg_dump available Try to understand if we have pg_dump available Set paths to PG client tools, remove debugging outputs Update the action runner postgres client apt get update first Try the postgres package instead Try brew installation Use path to brew Add brew link Try pointing the pg_dump/restore to the brew install location
Remove step name that may be bad syntax Update step 'if' syntax Fix traces path and ensure traces are enabled Try shortening step name Fail a step intentionally to get a trace Add step name Try removing the new step Re-add step
… feature Remove commented code Neaten up code and add comments
Add make file comments
Stop the markdown linter complaining Fail a test on purpose Fix intentional failure
Update README
AdamHawtin
force-pushed
the
playwright-functional-tests-CMS-198
branch
from
e0a271f to
2a0fc49
Compare
AdamHawtin
force-pushed
the
playwright-functional-tests-CMS-198
branch
from
43fa69b to
efcdf76
Compare
sanjeevz3009
reviewed
Dec 2, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed every file. It looks good to me. Pulled down the branch and tested everything locally and things are working as it should. Awesome work @AdamHawtin
Left some minor comments =)
|
@MebinAbraham I know we had this conversation at various stages. But we need to end the docstring madness 😭 I'll show you Mebin in another comment and tag you in. I'll @AdamHawtin into it as well. |
sanjeevz3009
reviewed
Dec 2, 2024
MebinAbraham
approved these changes
Dec 13, 2024
sanjeevz3009
approved these changes
Dec 13, 2024
RealOrangeOne
approved these changes
Jan 7, 2025
AdamHawtin
requested review from
MebinAbraham,
sanjeevz3009,
zerolab and
RealOrangeOne
MebinAbraham
approved these changes
Jan 13, 2025
|
🎉 |
ababic
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 16, 2025
* main: Update the embed block to be a custom video embed that uses the design system video embed template (#62) Django Migration Linter Integration (#43) Tidy up the info/warning panel and fix title/no title output (#73) Introduce Functional Tests using Playwright and Behave #31 # Conflicts: # poetry.lock # pyproject.toml
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What is the context of this PR?
This PR adds functional tests for the app, written in the Behave BDD framework and using Playwright to test browser interactions.
How to review
Try running the functional tests in your development environment, following the new instructions in the README
Review the new documentation. Does it provide enough guidance for you to be happy adding new test features/scenarios as part of future work? Do the suggested code standards and patterns make sense? These are intended to be a starting point, based on my experience with large test suites in Behave, but they should be reviewed agreed as a team, not just taken as written.
Try running the tests in your IDE or editor of choice. Is it possible to easily run individual scenarios or debug them? Certain functionality might require installing extensions.
Check the custom fixture code for test setup and teardown, does it all make sense and is it sufficiently documented and understandable?
Check the features and scenarios. These are my initial guesses at some suitable scenarios, they are not driven by any explicit requirements from those features. I am perfectly happy to modify them, or even tear them up and do it differently if people take issue, I just needed some example features in place to demonstrate the code structure.
Follow-up Actions
We still need to agree how we will utilise this method on testing in further development. I would suggest the test scenarios need to be agreed at refinement time for future incoming tickets, but this still needs wider discussion and agreement around how these new tests fit into our definitions or ready and done.
We will also need to dicuss and add tasks for backfilling tests on existing features.
Topics to Revisit:
serialized_rollbackinstead of our hand-rolled DSLR based database clean/restore between tests. Can we get it working and to a satisfactory speed?IS_EXTERNAL_ENVtotruewhen testing the external site, to better replicate a production settingKnown Issues
chromiumbrowser. We have agreed to address this in future work.