ci(date-picker,time-picker):Fix the e2e test #3429
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes update test scripts for date and time picker components. They simplify element selection strategies by using more direct and semantic queries. The overall test logic and assertions remain unchanged. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Warning There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool's configuration or disable the tool if it's a critical failure. 🔧 ESLint
examples/sites/demos/pc/app/date-picker/format.spec.tsOops! Something went wrong! :( ESLint: 8.57.1 ESLint couldn't find the plugin "eslint-plugin-vue". (The package "eslint-plugin-vue" was not found when loaded as a Node module from the directory "".) It's likely that the plugin isn't installed correctly. Try reinstalling by running the following: The plugin "eslint-plugin-vue" was referenced from the config file in ".eslintrc.js » @antfu/eslint-config » @antfu/eslint-config-vue". If you still can't figure out the problem, please stop by https://eslint.org/chat/help to chat with the team. examples/sites/demos/pc/app/time-picker/format.spec.tsOops! Something went wrong! :( ESLint: 8.57.1 ESLint couldn't find the plugin "eslint-plugin-vue". (The package "eslint-plugin-vue" was not found when loaded as a Node module from the directory "".) It's likely that the plugin isn't installed correctly. Try reinstalling by running the following: The plugin "eslint-plugin-vue" was referenced from the config file in ".eslintrc.js » @antfu/eslint-config » @antfu/eslint-config-vue". If you still can't figure out the problem, please stop by https://eslint.org/chat/help to chat with the team. Note ⚡️ AI Code Reviews for VS Code, Cursor, WindsurfCodeRabbit now has a plugin for VS Code, Cursor and Windsurf. This brings AI code reviews directly in the code editor. Each commit is reviewed immediately, finding bugs before the PR is raised. Seamless context handoff to your AI code agent ensures that you can easily incorporate review feedback. Note ⚡️ Faster reviews with cachingCodeRabbit now supports caching for code and dependencies, helping speed up reviews. This means quicker feedback, reduced wait times, and a smoother review experience overall. Cached data is encrypted and stored securely. This feature will be automatically enabled for all accounts on May 16th. To opt out, configure 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
✨ Finishing Touches
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. 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 (
|
Walkthrough此PR修复了date-picker和time-picker的e2e测试用例。主要修改包括调整选择器的定位方式和增加等待时间，以确保测试的稳定性。 Changes
|
![petercat-assistant[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/875736?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| @@ -38,17 +38,12 @@ test('时间格式化', async ({ page }) => { | |||
| await page.getByRole('button', { name: '确定' }).click() | |||
| await page.waitForTimeout(100) | |||
| await expect(page.getByRole('textbox', { name: '19:30:00' })).toBeVisible() | |||
| await page.waitForTimeout(2000) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Adding a 2000ms wait time might make the test suite slower. Consider using a more efficient wait strategy, such as waiting for a specific element to be visible or a network request to complete, to improve test performance.
WalkthroughThis PR fixes e2e test cases for date-picker and time-picker. The main modifications include adjusting the positioning method of the selector and increasing the waiting time to ensure the stability of the test. Changes
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
examples/sites/demos/pc/app/time-picker/format.spec.ts (1)
41-41: Consider using conditional waits instead of fixed timeouts.Adding a 2-second wait after verification might indicate timing issues in the test. While this may fix the immediate problem, fixed timeouts can make tests brittle and slow.
- await page.waitForTimeout(2000) + await page.waitForNavigation({ waitUntil: 'networkidle' })Or use one of Playwright's auto-waiting mechanisms that wait for elements to be stable.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
examples/sites/demos/pc/app/date-picker/format.spec.ts(1 hunks)examples/sites/demos/pc/app/time-picker/format.spec.ts(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: PR E2E Test (pnpm test:e2e3)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
examples/sites/demos/pc/app/date-picker/format.spec.ts (1)
14-14: Improved element selection strategy.The new selector is more direct and semantic, targeting the specific cell element with name "24" rather than using a complex approach. This change makes the test more robust and easier to maintain.
examples/sites/demos/pc/app/time-picker/format.spec.ts (1)
44-46: Good improvement to element selectors.Replacing complex CSS selectors with more semantic role-based selectors improves test maintainability and readability. The new selectors are more resilient to UI changes and better represent the component structure.
discreted66
changed the title
PR
修复e2e测试用例
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