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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
feat: Initial E2E test framework for v2 #288
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: Initial E2E test framework for v2 #288
Changes from all commits
470d06d
ab81ef9
7c970b5
853a2b9
2b0f0cb
78ceb9c
5243dea
5eb9314
8fc553a
1b0e0d3
f39f59a
0428a62
94c7684
dfe0c7c
8af7d02
18f21da
bcef4ac
91bda34
08dc699
b8cc80f
a88a722
4bad40e
3b0b4cd
15a9a11
081c9cf
439c13b
d7f9257
5eedfbe
7381ca2
d3c8e50
e66c685
bee5e25
66b7d60
7c568de
41a4516
7997a16
fae6b3f
787213c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@kylecarbs - I added a new DataDog trait for test runs (
"category"
) - intending to be one ofunit
|integration
|e2e
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is awesome!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@bryphe-coder thanks for implementing this! 🎉
I def didn't mean for it to block the work, but it's a nice touch 🎊
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the great feedback & review @vapurrmaid !
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Interesting that unpacking the
baseURL
works here since it didn't in v1 - good sign! I believe you can avoid doing the string concatenation here though if you defineurl
in the POM.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yep! The v1 E2E tests use a special (external) address to point to the server under test (picked up from
RUNTIME_CONFIG
: https://github.com/coder/m/blob/833f23892c4802bfcdf9b39c86f415a1dc70a3b2/product/coder/e2e/configuration/runtime.ts#L18)With these tests - using the
webServer
automatically populates thebaseURL
which is convenient.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good point - we have some more utilities in the POM layer in v1, I brought them over (ie,
BasePOM
) here in this change: 7c568deIt's a little bit awkward - since I'm passing both the
baseURL
andpage
into the POM's - let me know if you were thinking of a different approach!There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Implemented @vapurrmaid 's suggestions which help improve this in: fae6b3f - I'll merge what we have so the test is in place for the NextJS -> Webpack changes, but happy to iterate on it more
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@bryphe-coder I'm definitely in favor of this merging sooner than later for iteration, it's in a really good starting spot!