e2e-test: add test cov for 'open changes' in editor action bar #5836
Conversation
|
E2E Tests 🚀 ? |
| await test.step('verify "open in viewer" renders html', async () => { | ||
| await app.code.driver.page.getByLabel('Open in Viewer').nth(1).click(); | ||
| const viewerFrame = app.code.driver.page.locator('iframe.webview').contentFrame().locator('#active-frame').contentFrame(); | ||
| const cellLocator = app.web |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should some of this be in positronViewer? It seems like there is a bit of duplication
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe? I'm on the fence. I usually don't put verifications in the POM, but certainly interacting with the buttons could be in there. I can do a followup PR to move some of this into the PositronViewer?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or would it be PositronEditor? Maybe both, I guess I'll find out...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, agreed about verifications in the POM. we definitely have some but not my favorite. was thinking more about locators that might be reusable
| async function bindPlatformHotkey(page: Page, key: string) { | ||
| await page.keyboard.press(process.platform === 'darwin' ? `Meta+${key}` : `Control+${key}`); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
seems like we may need a new place to start collecting things like this. i.e. general purpose helper functions. not necessary for this PR but maybe keep in mind that we might want a positronCode.ts or something
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(and that might be a good step towards getting unhooked from the MS dependencies)
Would be great if everything didn't depend on code.ts since code.ts is loaded with getElements, etc
argh
Enhanced test coverage for the editor action bar, specifically verifying that ‘Open Changes’ functions as expected for
.qmdfiles. Additionally, refined test readability for better clarity and maintainability.QA Notes
Tagged the test to run in this PR. If it passes, we are good. 🙌
@:editor-action-bar