Add: product form tests (other options, catalog) #2391
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve significant updates to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (8)
tests/pw/tests/e2e/vendorSettings.spec.ts (3)
123-125: LGTM! Consider adding an assertion.The test case for RMA settings with no warranty is well-implemented. It correctly uses the
setRmaSettingsmethod with the appropriate parameters.Consider adding an assertion after calling
setRmaSettingsto verify that the settings were applied correctly. For example:await vendor.setRmaSettings({ ...data.vendor.rma, type: 'no_warranty' }); // Add an assertion here to verify the settings were applied await expect(vendor.getRmaSettings()).resolves.toEqual({ ...data.vendor.rma, type: 'no_warranty' });
127-129: LGTM! Consider explicitly specifying the warranty type for consistency.The test case for RMA settings with limited warranty is well-implemented. It correctly uses the
setRmaSettingsmethod with the defaultdata.vendor.rmaobject.For consistency with the other test cases and to make the warranty type explicit, consider modifying the test case as follows:
test('vendor can set rma settings (warranty included limited)', { tag: ['@pro', '@vendor'] }, async () => { await vendor.setRmaSettings({ ...data.vendor.rma, type: 'included_warranty', length: 'limited' }); });This change makes it clear that we're testing a limited warranty scenario and maintains consistency with the structure of the other test cases.
131-133: LGTM! Consider explicitly specifying the warranty type for clarity.The test case for RMA settings with lifetime warranty is well-implemented. It correctly uses the
setRmaSettingsmethod with the appropriate parameters.For clarity and consistency with the suggested changes in the previous test case, consider modifying the test case as follows:
test('vendor can set rma settings (warranty included lifetime)', { tag: ['@pro', '@vendor'] }, async () => { await vendor.setRmaSettings({ ...data.vendor.rma, type: 'included_warranty', length: 'lifetime' }); });This change makes it explicit that we're testing an included warranty scenario with a lifetime length.
tests/pw/tests/e2e/productsDetails.spec.ts (3)
300-308: LGTM: Test cases for adding catalog mode.The test cases for adding catalog mode are well-implemented:
- Adding catalog mode without hidden price is correctly tested.
- Adding catalog mode with hidden price is properly tested.
Both tests follow the established pattern, use correct database option updates, and are properly tagged.
Consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of the database option updates for better readability and maintainability.
310-318: LGTM: Test cases for removing catalog mode.The test cases for removing catalog mode are well-implemented:
- Removing catalog mode without the price hidden option is correctly tested.
- Removing catalog mode with the price hidden option is properly tested.
Both tests follow the established pattern, use correct database option updates, and are properly tagged.
Consider adding a comment explaining the purpose of the database option updates for better readability and maintainability, similar to the suggestion for the adding catalog mode tests.
269-318: Overall assessment: High-quality additions to the test suite.The new test cases for product other options and catalog mode are well-implemented and comprehensive. They cover important functionality such as:
- Adding and removing product status, visibility, purchase notes, and reviews.
- Adding and removing catalog mode with various options.
All tests follow the established patterns in the file, use appropriate methods, and are correctly tagged. The use of database utils to set up the test environment is a good practice.
To further improve the code:
- Consider adding comments explaining the purpose of the database option updates in the catalog mode tests.
- Ensure that error handling and edge cases are covered in future iterations of these tests.
tests/pw/feature-map/feature-map.yml (2)
161-170: New vendor capabilities added for product managementThese additions enhance the vendor's ability to manage product options and catalog modes. Here's a summary of the new features:
- Product status and visibility options
- Purchase note management
- Product review settings
- Catalog mode controls, including price hiding
These features provide vendors with more control over their product listings and how they're presented to customers. The additions are consistent with the existing structure and naming conventions in the file.
Consider the following suggestions to further improve the feature set:
- Add a feature for vendors to set product visibility in search results.
- Consider adding a feature for vendors to schedule product visibility changes.
- For catalog mode, you might want to add a feature for vendors to customize the "Request a Quote" button text when price is hidden.
Detected Issues in
feature-map.yml:
Commented-out Duplicate Entries:
- Multiple lines contain commented-out features marked as duplicates. These should be reviewed and removed if they are no longer necessary to reduce clutter.
Inconsistent Naming Conventions:
- Numerous inconsistencies in naming conventions have been identified throughout the file. Standardizing the naming scheme will enhance readability and maintainability.
Recommendations:
- Remove Unnecessary Duplicates: Eliminate commented-out duplicate entries that are no longer relevant to streamline the feature map.
- Standardize Naming Conventions: Adopt a consistent naming convention (e.g., camelCase, snake_case) across all features to improve clarity.
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-1037: Overall structure and potential improvementsThe feature map is comprehensive and well-organized. However, there are a few areas that could be improved:
- Consistency: Ensure consistent use of boolean values (
true/false) instead of mixing with string values in some places.- Duplicates: There are some commented-out features marked as duplicates. Consider removing these to reduce clutter.
- Grouping: Some related features are spread across different sections. Consider grouping them together for better organization.
- Naming conventions: Ensure consistent naming conventions across all features. For example, some use camel case while others use snake case.
To improve the overall structure and maintainability of the file, consider the following actions:
- Remove commented-out duplicate entries to reduce file size and improve readability.
- Group related features together, possibly creating sub-sections within each page.
- Standardize the naming conventions across all features.
- Review and update the
falseentries to ensure they accurately reflect the current state of the application.To identify potential inconsistencies or duplicates, you can run the following script:
This script will help identify areas that may need attention for improving the overall quality and consistency of the feature map.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Identify potential inconsistencies and duplicates in the feature map # Check for inconsistent boolean values echo "Inconsistent boolean values:" grep -nE ': (true|false)' tests/pw/feature-map/feature-map.yml | grep -vE ': (true|false)$' # Check for commented-out duplicate entries echo -e "\nCommented-out duplicate entries:" grep -n "duplicate" tests/pw/feature-map/feature-map.yml # Check for inconsistent naming conventions echo -e "\nInconsistent naming conventions:" grep -nE '^ {6}[a-z]' tests/pw/feature-map/feature-map.yml | grep -vE '^ {6}[a-z]+( [a-z]+)*:'Length of output: 4081
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
- tests/pw/feature-map/feature-map.yml (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/pages/productsPage.ts (2 hunks)
- tests/pw/tests/e2e/productsDetails.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/pw/tests/e2e/vendorSettings.spec.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (6)
tests/pw/tests/e2e/vendorSettings.spec.ts (2)
135-137: LGTM! Well-implemented test case.The test case for RMA settings with warranty as an addon is well-implemented. It correctly uses the
setRmaSettingsmethod with the appropriate parameters, testing a specific scenario (addon warranty) which enhances the overall test coverage.
123-138: Great addition of RMA settings test cases!The new test cases for RMA settings with different warranty types significantly improve the test coverage. They are well-structured, consistent in their approach, and cover various scenarios (no warranty, limited warranty, lifetime warranty, and addon warranty).
A few minor suggestions have been made to improve clarity and consistency across the test cases. Overall, these additions enhance the robustness of the test suite for vendor settings.
tests/pw/tests/e2e/productsDetails.spec.ts (4)
272-274: LGTM: Test case for adding product status.The test case follows the established pattern and correctly tests the ability to add product status as part of other options.
276-278: LGTM: Test case for adding product visibility.The test case is well-structured and correctly tests the ability to add product visibility as part of other options.
280-286: LGTM: Test cases for adding and removing purchase note.Both test cases are well-implemented:
- Adding a purchase note is correctly tested.
- Removing a purchase note is properly tested by setting it to an empty string.
The tests follow the established pattern and are correctly tagged.
288-294: LGTM: Test cases for adding and removing product reviews.The test cases for adding and removing product reviews are well-implemented:
- Adding product reviews is correctly tested.
- Removing product reviews is properly tested by setting enableReview to false.
Both tests follow the established pattern and are correctly tagged.
* Add: product form tests (other options, catalog) * Add: add product form tests( shipping, tax, linked products) * Add: product form tests (other options, catalog) (getdokan#2391) * Fix: PR reviews * Fix: pr reviews * Update: remove duplicate method * Update: update login method * Fix: pr reviews
All Submissions:
Changes proposed in this Pull Request:
Related Pull Request(s)
Closes
How to test the changes in this Pull Request:
Changelog entry
Title
Detailed Description of the pull request. What was previous behaviour
and what will be changed in this PR.
Before Changes
Describe the issue before changes with screenshots(s).
After Changes
Describe the issue after changes with screenshot(s).
Feature Video (optional)
Link of detailed video if this PR is for a feature.
PR Self Review Checklist:
FOR PR REVIEWER ONLY:
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Tests