# End-to-end testing Best Practices NOTE: **Note:** This is a tailored extension of the Best Practices [found in the testing guide](../best_practices.md). ## Link a test to its test-case issue Every test should have a corresponding issue in the [Quality Testcases project](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/testcases/). It's recommended that you reuse the issue created to plan the test. If one does not already exist you can create the issue yourself. Alternatively, you can run the test in a pipeline that has reporting enabled and the test-case issue reporter will automatically create a new issue. Whether you create a new test-case issue or one is created automatically, you will need to manually add a `testcase` RSpec metadata tag. In most cases, a single test will be associated with a single test-case issue ([see below for exceptions](#exceptions)). For example: ```ruby RSpec.describe 'Stage' do describe 'General description of the feature under test' do it 'test name', testcase: 'https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/testcases/-/issues/:issue_id' do ... end it 'another test', testcase: 'https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/testcases/-/issues/:another_issue_id' do ... end end end ``` ### Exceptions Most tests are defined by a single line of a `spec` file, which is why those tests can be linked to a single test-case issue via the `testcase` tag. However, some tests don't have a one-to-one relationship between a line of a `spec` file and a test-case issue. This is because some tests are defined in a way that means a single line is associated with multiple tests, including: - Parallelized tests. - Templated tests. - Tests in shared examples that include more than one example. In those and similar cases we can't assign a single `testcase` tag and so we rely on the test-case reporter to programmatically determine the correct test-case issue based on the name and description of the test. In such cases, the test-case reporter will automatically create a test-case issue the first time the test runs, if no issue exists already. In such a case, if you create the issue yourself or want to reuse an existing issue, you must use this [end-to-end test issue template](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/testcases/-/blob/master/.gitlab/issue_templates/End-to-end%20Test.md) to format the issue description. To illustrate, there are two tests in the shared examples in [`qa/specs/features/ee/browser_ui/3_create/repository/restrict_push_protected_branch_spec.rb`](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/47b17db82c38ab704a23b5ba5d296ea0c6a732c8/qa/qa/specs/features/ee/browser_ui/3_create/repository/restrict_push_protected_branch_spec.rb): ```ruby shared_examples 'only user with access pushes and merges' do it 'unselected maintainer user fails to push' do ... end it 'selected developer user pushes and merges' do ... end end ``` Consider the following test that includes the shared examples: ```ruby RSpec.describe 'Create' do describe 'Restricted protected branch push and merge' do context 'when only one user is allowed to merge and push to a protected branch' do ... it_behaves_like 'only user with access pushes and merges' end end end ``` There would be two associated test-case issues, one for each shared example, with the following content: [Test 1](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/testcases/-/issues/600): ````markdown ```markdown Title: browser_ui/3_create/repository/restrict_push_protected_branch_spec.rb | Create Restricted protected branch push and merge when only one user is allowed to merge and push to a protected branch behaves like only user with access pushes and merges selecte... Description: ### Full description Create Restricted protected branch push and merge when only one user is allowed to merge and push to a protected branch behaves like only user with access pushes and merges selected developer user pushes and merges ### File path ./qa/specs/features/ee/browser_ui/3_create/repository/restrict_push_protected_branch_spec.rb ``` ```` [Test 2](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/testcases/-/issues/602): ````markdown ```markdown Title: browser_ui/3_create/repository/restrict_push_protected_branch_spec.rb | Create Restricted protected branch push and merge when only one user is allowed to merge and push to a protected branch behaves like only user with access pushes and merges unselec... Description: ### Full description Create Restricted protected branch push and merge when only one user is allowed to merge and push to a protected branch behaves like only user with access pushes and merges unselected maintainer user fails to push ### File path ./qa/specs/features/ee/browser_ui/3_create/repository/restrict_push_protected_branch_spec.rb ``` ```` ## Prefer API over UI The end-to-end testing framework has the ability to fabricate its resources on a case-by-case basis. Resources should be fabricated via the API wherever possible. We can save both time and money by fabricating resources that our test will need via the API. [Learn more](resources.md) about resources. ## Avoid superfluous expectations To keep tests lean, it is important that we only test what we need to test. Ensure that you do not add any `expect()` statements that are unrelated to what needs to be tested. For example: ```ruby #=> Good Flow::Login.sign_in Page::Main::Menu.perform do |menu| expect(menu).to be_signed_in end #=> Bad Flow::Login.sign_in(as: user) Page::Main::Menu.perform do |menu| expect(menu).to be_signed_in expect(page).to have_content(user.name) #=> we already validated being signed in. redundant. expect(menu).to have_element(:nav_bar) #=> likely unnecessary. already validated in lower-level. test doesn't call for validating this. end #=> Good issue = Resource::Issue.fabricate_via_api! do |issue| issue.name = 'issue-name' end Project::Issues::Index.perform do |index| expect(index).to have_issue(issue) end #=> Bad issue = Resource::Issue.fabricate_via_api! do |issue| issue.name = 'issue-name' end Project::Issues::Index.perform do |index| expect(index).to have_issue(issue) expect(page).to have_content(issue.name) #=> page content check is redundant as the issue was already validated in the line above. end ``` ## Prefer `aggregate_failures` when there are back-to-back expectations In cases where there must be multiple (back-to-back) expectations within a test case, it is preferable to use `aggregate_failures`. This allows you to group a set of expectations and see all the failures altogether, rather than having the test being aborted on the first failure. For example: ```ruby #=> Good Page::Search::Results.perform do |search| search.switch_to_code aggregate_failures 'testing search results' do expect(search).to have_file_in_project(template[:file_name], project.name) expect(search).to have_file_with_content(template[:file_name], content[0..33]) end end #=> Bad Page::Search::Results.perform do |search| search.switch_to_code expect(search).to have_file_in_project(template[:file_name], project.name) expect(search).to have_file_with_content(template[:file_name], content[0..33]) end ``` ## Prefer to split tests across multiple files Our framework includes a couple of parallelization mechanisms that work by executing spec files in parallel. However, because tests are parallelized by spec *file* and not by test/example, we can't achieve greater parallelization if a new test is added to an existing file. Nonetheless, there could be other reasons to add a new test to an existing file. For example, if tests share state that is expensive to set up it might be more efficient to perform that setup once even if it means the tests that use the setup can't be parallelized. In summary: - **Do**: Split tests across separate files, unless the tests share expensive setup. - **Don't**: Put new tests in an existing file without considering the impact on parallelization. ## Limit the use of the UI in `before(:context)` and `after` hooks Limit the use of `before(:context)` hooks to perform setup tasks with only API calls, non-UI operations, or basic UI operations such as login. We use [`capybara-screenshot`](https://github.com/mattheworiordan/capybara-screenshot) library to automatically save a screenshot on failure. `capybara-screenshot` [saves the screenshot in the RSpec's `after` hook](https://github.com/mattheworiordan/capybara-screenshot/blob/master/lib/capybara-screenshot/rspec.rb#L97). [If there is a failure in `before(:context)`, the `after` hook is not called](https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/pull/2652/files#diff-5e04af96d5156e787f28d519a8c99615R148) and so the screenshot is not saved. Given this fact, we should limit the use of `before(:context)` to only those operations where a screenshot is not needed. Similarly, the `after` hook should only be used for non-UI operations. Any UI operations in `after` hook in a test file would execute before the `after` hook that takes the screenshot. This would result in moving the UI status away from the point of failure and so the screenshot would not be captured at the right moment. ## Ensure tests do not leave the browser logged in All tests expect to be able to log in at the start of the test. For an example see: Ideally, any actions performed in an `after(:context)` (or [`before(:context)`](#limit-the-use-of-the-ui-in-beforecontext-and-after-hooks)) block would be performed via the API. But if it's necessary to do so via the UI (e.g., if API functionality doesn't exist), make sure to log out at the end of the block. ```ruby after(:all) do login unless Page::Main::Menu.perform(&:signed_in?) # Do something while logged in Page::Main::Menu.perform(&:sign_out) end ``` ## Tag tests that require Administrator access We don't run tests that require Administrator access against our Production environments. When you add a new test that requires Administrator access, apply the RSpec metadata `:requires_admin` so that the test will not be included in the test suites executed against Production and other environments on which we don't want to run those tests. Note: When running tests locally or configuring a pipeline, the environment variable `QA_CAN_TEST_ADMIN_FEATURES` can be set to `false` to skip tests that have the `:requires_admin` tag. ## Prefer `Commit` resource over `ProjectPush` In line with [using the API](#prefer-api-over-ui), use a `Commit` resource whenever possible. `ProjectPush` uses raw shell commands via the Git Command Line Interface (CLI) whereas the `Commit` resource makes an HTTP request. ```ruby # Using a commit resource Resource::Commit.fabricate_via_api! do |commit| commit.commit_message = 'Initial commit' commit.add_files([ {file_path: 'README.md', content: 'Hello, GitLab'} ]) end # Using a ProjectPush Resource::Repository::ProjectPush.fabricate! do |push| push.commit_message = 'Initial commit' push.file_name = 'README.md' push.file_content = 'Hello, GitLab' end ``` NOTE: **Note:** A few exceptions for using a `ProjectPush` would be when your test calls for testing SSH integration or using the Git CLI. ## Preferred method to blur elements To blur an element, the preferred method is to click another element that does not alter the test state. If there's a mask that blocks the page elements, such as may occur with some dropdowns, use WebDriver's native mouse events to simulate a click event on the coordinates of an element. Use the following method: `click_element_coordinates`. Avoid clicking the `body` for blurring elements such as inputs and dropdowns because it clicks the center of the viewport. This action can also unintentionally click other elements, altering the test state and causing it to fail. ```ruby # Clicking another element to blur an input def add_issue_to_epic(issue_url) find_element(:issue_actions_split_button).find('button', text: 'Add an issue').click fill_element :add_issue_input, issue_url # Clicking the title blurs the input click_element :title click_element :add_issue_button end # Using native mouse click events in the case of a mask/overlay click_element_coordinates(:title) ```