[chore] Modernize SettingsDialog #9684
Merged
Conversation
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
sfc-gh-bnisco
added
security-assessment-completed
sfc-gh-bnisco
force-pushed
the
bnisco/modernize-settingsdialog
branch
from
a6f9b92 to
45b1a3e
Compare
sfc-gh-bnisco
force-pushed
the
bnisco/modernize-settingsdialog
branch
from
45b1a3e to
17c192f
Compare
lukasmasuch
approved these changes
Oct 25, 2024
| expect(screen.getByText("Run on save")).toBeInTheDocument() | ||
|
|
||
| screen.getByText("Run on save").click() | ||
| await user.click(screen.getByText("Run on save")) |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Curious question: what is the benefit of user.click() vs screen.getByText("Run on save").click()? From reading the docs, it sounds like that user-events is a more realistic simulation of user events. It might be good to start a list of tips & tricks in our wiki related to writing RTL tests.
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's correct, user-event is more realistic to how a user interacts with the application. Generally speaking I prefer to lean on automated enforcement rather than documentation, so in that spirit, I have a follow-up PR that enforces user-event via eslint here
sfc-gh-bnisco
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 20, 2024
## Describe your changes - Based on some feedback in #9684 this PR introduces a new lint rule for RTL, encouraging usage of user-event. - user-events gives us greater confidence in the way we write tests because "fireEvent dispatches DOM events, whereas user-event simulates full interactions, which may fire multiple events and do additional checks along the way." [[docs](https://testing-library.com/docs/user-event/intro/)] - This PR adds inline disable comments to any usages that are currently in violation, so there should be no changes to code as written today. ## GitHub Issue Link (if applicable) ## Testing Plan - Explanation of why no additional tests are needed - Unit Tests (JS and/or Python) ✅ - E2E Tests - Any manual testing needed? --- **Contribution License Agreement** By submitting this pull request you agree that all contributions to this project are made under the Apache 2.0 license.
edegp
pushed a commit
to edegp/streamlit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 19, 2025
## Describe your changes - Modernizes `SettingsDialog` and its tests - There should be no functional changes, just a refactor onto modern React patterns ## GitHub Issue Link (if applicable) ## Testing Plan - Explanation of why no additional tests are needed - Unit Tests (JS and/or Python) - E2E Tests - Any manual testing needed? --- **Contribution License Agreement** By submitting this pull request you agree that all contributions to this project are made under the Apache 2.0 license.
edegp
pushed a commit
to edegp/streamlit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 19, 2025
## Describe your changes - Based on some feedback in streamlit#9684 this PR introduces a new lint rule for RTL, encouraging usage of user-event. - user-events gives us greater confidence in the way we write tests because "fireEvent dispatches DOM events, whereas user-event simulates full interactions, which may fire multiple events and do additional checks along the way." [[docs](https://testing-library.com/docs/user-event/intro/)] - This PR adds inline disable comments to any usages that are currently in violation, so there should be no changes to code as written today. ## GitHub Issue Link (if applicable) ## Testing Plan - Explanation of why no additional tests are needed - Unit Tests (JS and/or Python) ✅ - E2E Tests - Any manual testing needed? --- **Contribution License Agreement** By submitting this pull request you agree that all contributions to this project are made under the Apache 2.0 license.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Describe your changes
SettingsDialogand its testsGitHub Issue Link (if applicable)
Testing Plan
Contribution License Agreement
By submitting this pull request you agree that all contributions to this project are made under the Apache 2.0 license.