Jetpack E2E: expand the Marketing: SEO spec. #81199
Conversation
- expand the spec packages/calypso-e2e/src/lib/pages/marketing-page.ts - implement new methods to support expanded testing.
- add compat with eCommerce plans
|
This PR does not affect the size of JS and CSS bundles shipped to the user's browser. Generated by performance advisor bot at iscalypsofastyet.com. |
matticbot
added
the
[Status] Needs Review
| async closeSEOPreview(): Promise< void > { | ||
| await this.page.click( selectors.seoPreviewPaneCloseButton ); | ||
| await this.page.waitForSelector( selectors.seoPreviewButton ); | ||
| async getPreviewTextForPageStructureCategory( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion (non-blocking): Definitely not required, but what do you think of designing this function as a validate function?
I was thinking more of the case where you already have a title, but then you change it. The element will already exist in the DOM, and at that point it's effectively a race against the React re-render. 😆 I think in the vast majority of cases (and we don't even test this case right now), the re-render will be fast enough, but using waitFor for a specific piece of text might be even more stable for future extensions. Up to you though! 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done, changed to a validate function instead.
| websiteMetaTextArea: '#advanced_seo_front_page_description', | ||
| seoPreviewButton: '.seo-settings__preview-button', | ||
| seoPreviewPane: '.web-preview.is-seo', | ||
| seoPreviewPaneCloseButton: '.web-preview__close', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Praise: You've done such a nice job in these PRs updating the locator syntax as you go! I really appreciate that! 😄
| } ); | ||
|
|
||
| it( 'Verify preview for Facebook', async function () { | ||
| await marketingPage.validateExternalPreview( 'Facebook', externalPreviewText ); | ||
| } ); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggestion (non-blocking): How do you feel about adding saving the settings into this test spec? I think it should be easily designable to handle concurrencies, because i think the previews seem to be based on local unsaved state. I figured validating that the save web request goes through okay might be nice addition! But totally not required. 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Your hunch is correct, and I was able to work saving the changes into the flow. Nice suggestion!
github-actions
bot
removed
the
[Status] Needs Review
Related to #80730.
Proposed Changes
This PR expands the existing SEO spec to something more substantial.
Key flows:
Testing Instructions
Ensure the following build configurations are passing:
Pre-merge Checklist