@ScarletKuro Thanks for identifying the fix for MudButton in dotnet/aspnetcore#8203! Seemed to do the trick as seen below:

This PR will expand that effort to other controls. I use MudIconButton and MudMenuItem specifically.

It hasn't been tested at all and pretty sure it doesn't compile, but I'm waiting to see if the original fix has no side effects, as you mentioned, and if you're interested in seeing the effort continued :)

@mikes-gh I think you reviewed the commit which Daniel made on his own repo/app ;)

@ScarletKuro test is failing with:

A total of 1 test files matched the specified pattern.
  Failed AddAndRemoveEventListenerWhenChangingColorPickerView [45 ms]
  Error Message:
   Bunit.Rendering.UnknownEventHandlerIdException : There is no event handler with ID '12' associated with the 'onclick' event in the current render tree.

This can happen, for example, when using `cut.FindAll()`, and calling event trigger methods on the found elements after a re-render of the render tree. The workaround is to use re-issue the `cut.FindAll()` call after each render of a component, this ensures you have the latest version of the render tree and DOM tree available in your test code.

which could be from the icon buttons?

Yes, we unfortunately have a lot of these stale references in the tests.

Yes, this is why I had to do change the ToggleGroupTests.cs
I mentioned this issue here #8151 (reply in thread) and as @henon said its incorrectly made unit tests.
I believe you can use the same trick as I did with the func.

@ScarletKuro @henon Should be ready except for the last failing test:

// MenuTests
public async Task OnClickErrorContentCaughtException()
{
    var comp = Context.RenderComponent<MenuErrorContenCaughtException>();
    await comp.FindAll("button.mud-button-root")[0].ClickAsync(new MouseEventArgs());
    comp.FindAll("div.mud-popover-open").Count.Should().Be(1);
    comp.FindAll("div.mud-list-item").Count.Should().Be(1);
    await comp.FindAll("div.mud-list-item")[0].ClickAsync(new MouseEventArgs());
    var mudAlert = comp.FindComponent<MudAlert>();
    var text = mudAlert.Find("div.mud-alert-message");
    text.InnerHtml.Should().Be("Oh my! We caught an error and handled it!");
}

@* MenuErrorContenCaughtException *@
@namespace MudBlazor.UnitTests.TestComponents
<ErrorBoundary>
    <ChildContent>
        <MudPopoverProvider></MudPopoverProvider>
        <MudMenu Label="Open Menu">
            <ChildContent>
                <MudMenuItem @onclick="@HandleClickAsync">Throw error</MudMenuItem>
            </ChildContent>
        </MudMenu>
        <br/>
    </ChildContent>
    <ErrorContent>
        <MudAlert Severity="Severity.Error">Oh my! We caught an error and handled it!</MudAlert>
    </ErrorContent>
</ErrorBoundary>

@code {
    public async Task HandleClickAsync()
    {
        await Task.Delay(100);
        throw new Exception("Something went wrong...");
    }
}

 OnClickErrorContentCaughtException
   Source: MenuTests.cs line 242
   Duration: 111 ms

  Message: 
Bunit.Rendering.ComponentNotFoundException : A component of type MudAlert was not found in the render tree.

I don't think it's capturing the exception properly due to the async click handler but I could be wrong. Adding a Comp.Render() before searching for the Alert will give the "Something went wrong..." exception instead.

I'm slightly confused why are we modifying the examples from Docs, they are not related to the Unit test area.
If it's only for testing purpose then they shouldn't be pushed to remote.
Otherwise I would refrain from bloating the docs, like the alert with button count has no value, same as the added snackbar to the badge click.

Maybe I'm wrong, @henon can correct me.

@ScarletKuro @henon Should be ready except for the last failing test:

I will try to look on weekends when I get time, for now I'm busy with other PRs.

Sure, no problem. Badge, Alert, FAB are gone. Chip, ListItem, and NavMenu remain - let me know which you want gone or all of them.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 3 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.64%. Comparing base (8d49119) to head (e1e590d).
Report is 23 commits behind head on dev.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev    dotnet/aspnetcore#8281      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.54%   88.64%   +0.10%     
==========================================
  Files         400      407       +7     
  Lines       12086    12178      +92     
  Branches     2426     2430       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits        10701    10795      +94     
+ Misses        858      855       -3     
- Partials      527      528       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

List item was reverted because the expand toggle wasn't working. Could be looked into further but I might not need it for what I'm doing and seems to have wide-reaching consequences. Fixes the failing test and simplifies the PR through SelectTests not needing the changes made.

Overlay was reverted as well bc I'm not comfortable with the consequences of that considering a Render had to be added to the test to make it work. Similar for SwipeArea.

@ScarletKuro PR has been trimmed down and all tests are passing 🎉
Two docs added: NavMenuOnClickExample and ChipClickableExample; Will delete if that's preferred!

@danielchalmers can you please post screenshots of the new examples?

@danielchalmers can you please post screenshots of the new examples?

@henon

The chip has a distinct style when clickable so could be worthy of a showcase.

NavMenuLink now has an OnClick section like Link

You can see a bug in the video where if you click the About link while Settings is collapsed, Settings will open. This is not a regression.

OK, I think we can keep these examples.

Did some cosmetics, because this construction:

SomeType someName()=> returnRandomObject();

Is same if you did this:

SomeType someName()
{
    return returnRandomObject();
}

Therefore, the method / function name should start with capital letters (even if it's nested inside other function) as the style warring suggests:

Thanks @danielchalmers