feat: migrate protect intrinsics test to e2e#26197
Merged
itsyoboieltr merged 7 commits intodevelopfrom Aug 20, 2024
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
CLA Signature Action: All authors have signed the CLA. You may need to manually re-run the blocking PR check if it doesn't pass in a few minutes. |
Collaborator
Builds ready [bab6b41]
Page Load Metrics (321 ± 301 ms)
Bundle size diffs
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #26197 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 69.96% 69.96%
========================================
Files 1405 1405
Lines 48996 48996
Branches 13697 13697
========================================
Hits 34280 34280
Misses 14716 14716 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Collaborator
Builds ready [d46a9c3]
Page Load Metrics (305 ± 280 ms)
Bundle size diffs
|
DDDDDanica
reviewed
Jul 31, 2024
seaona
reviewed
Jul 31, 2024
| @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ | |||
| import { test, expect } from '@playwright/test'; | |||
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hi there 👋 I have a couple of questions regarding this e2e implementation:
- is there any reason why we are using playwright?
- we have a lockdown e2e spec here. I'm wondering what's the difference with this one, as it looks like it's already achieving the same goal? 🤔
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi!
- No reason from my side. Is there any reason we should not be using playwright? I just used it, because I created this PR based on an example that @Gudahtt gave me: https://github.com/MetaMask/browser-passworder/blob/main/test/index.spec.ts, and I saw some other tests also using playwright.
- That test indeed looks pretty similar, I did not know such a test already existed. Maybe @Gudahtt has a better understanding of the differences? I guess in this case we can reduce the PR to just deleting the unit test.
Collaborator
Builds ready [b5dea0d]
Page Load Metrics (81 ± 24 ms)
Bundle size diffs
|
hjetpoluru
previously approved these changes
Aug 2, 2024
Contributor
hjetpoluru
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM!! Interesting approach thanks @itsyoboieltr.
Contributor
|
@itsyoboieltr, you may have to put the test results in the gitignore. |
|
Collaborator
Builds ready [5d7c780]
Page Load Metrics (85 ± 12 ms)
Bundle size diffs
|
vthomas13
approved these changes
Aug 19, 2024
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
7 participants
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.
Description
After migrating the global unit tests from Mocha to Jest, the
protect-intrinsicstest started to fail. It seems that the jest environment is not compatible with the lockdownprotect-intrinsicsintends to test. Furthermore, as this test is testing the lockdown of the browser environment, it would probably make more sense to test it in a browser.For this reason, this PR migrates the protect-intrinsics test to run as part of the e2e test suite, as the browser would be a better test environment, closer to production.
Related issues
Fixes: https://github.com/MetaMask/MetaMask-planning/issues/2907
Manual testing steps
test:e2e:globaland see the tests passScreenshots/Recordings
Not applicable
Pre-merge author checklist
Pre-merge reviewer checklist