trent_larson
/
crowd-funder-for-time-pwa
4
1
Fork 2
Code Issues Pull Requests 20 Releases 5 Wiki Activity
Browse Source

Merge branch 'playwright-test-60-fix' into didview-invalid-did-handling

didview-invalid-did-handling
Jose Olarte III 2 weeks ago
parent
1365adad92 4391cb2881
commit
1a77dfb750
4 changed files with 569 additions and 5 deletions
Whitespace
Show all changes Ignore whitespace when comparing lines Ignore changes in amount of whitespace Ignore changes in whitespace at EOL
Unified View
Diff Options
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File
  1. 207
      .cursor/rules/harbor_pilot_universal.mdc
  2. 356
      .cursor/rules/playwright-test-investigation.mdc
  3. 7
      test-playwright/60-new-activity.spec.ts
  4. 4
      test-playwright/testUtils.ts

207
.cursor/rules/harbor_pilot_universal.mdc
View File

@ -0,0 +1,207 @@
---
alwaysApply: true
inherits: base_context.mdc
---
```json
{
"coaching_level": "standard",
"socratic_max_questions": 2,
"verbosity": "concise",
"timebox_minutes": 10,
"format_enforcement": "strict"
}
```
# Harbor Pilot — Universal Directive for Human-Facing Technical Guides
**Author**: System/Shared
**Date**: 2025-08-21 (UTC)
**Status**: 🚢 ACTIVE — General ruleset extending *Base Context — Human Competence First*
> **Alignment with Base Context**
> - **Purpose fit**: Prioritizes human competence and collaboration while delivering reproducible artifacts.
> - **Output Contract**: This directive **adds universal constraints** for any technical topic while **inheriting** the Base Context contract sections.
> - **Toggles honored**: Uses the same toggle semantics; defaults above can be overridden by the caller.
---
## Objective
Produce a **developer-grade, reproducible guide** for any technical topic that onboards a competent practitioner **without meta narration** and **with evidence-backed steps**.
## Scope & Constraints
- **One Markdown document** as the deliverable.
- Use **absolute dates** in **UTC** (e.g., `2025-08-21T14:22Z`) — avoid “today/yesterday”.
- Include at least **one diagram** (Mermaid preferred). Choose the most fitting type:
- `sequenceDiagram` (protocols/flows), `flowchart`, `stateDiagram`, `gantt` (timelines), or `classDiagram` (schemas).
- Provide runnable examples where applicable:
- **APIs**: `curl` + one client library (e.g., `httpx` for Python).
- **CLIs**: literal command blocks and expected output snippets.
- **Code**: minimal, self-contained samples (language appropriate).
- Cite **evidence** for *Works/Doesn’t* items (timestamps, filenames, line numbers, IDs/status codes, or logs).
- If something is unknown, output `TODO:<missing>` — **never invent**.
## Required Sections (extends Base Output Contract)
Follow this exact order **after** the Base Contract’s **Objective → Result → Use/Run** headers:
1. **Context & Scope**
- Problem statement, audience, in/out-of-scope bullets.
2. **Artifacts & Links**
- Repos/PRs, design docs, datasets/HARs/pcaps, scripts/tools, dashboards.
3. **Environment & Preconditions**
- OS/runtime, versions/build IDs, services/endpoints/URLs, credentials/auth mode (describe acquisition, do not expose secrets).
4. **Architecture / Process Overview**
- Short prose + **one diagram** selected from the list above.
5. **Interfaces & Contracts (choose one)**
- **API-based**: Endpoint table (*Step, Method, Path/URL, Auth, Key Headers/Params, Sample Req/Resp ref*).
- **Data/Files**: I/O contract table (*Source, Format, Schema/Columns, Size, Validation rules*).
- **Systems/Hardware**: Interfaces table (*Port/Bus, Protocol, Voltage/Timing, Constraints*).
6. **Repro: End-to-End Procedure**
- Minimal copy-paste steps with code/commands and **expected outputs**.
7. **What Works (with Evidence)**
- Each item: **Time (UTC)** • **Artifact/Req IDs** • **Status/Result** • **Where to verify**.
8. **What Doesn’t (Evidence & Hypotheses)**
- Each failure: locus (file/endpoint/module), evidence snippet; short hypothesis and **next probe**.
9. **Risks, Limits, Assumptions**
- SLOs/limits, rate/size caps, security boundaries (CORS/CSRF/ACLs), retries/backoff/idempotency patterns.
10. **Next Steps (Owner • Exit Criteria • Target Date)**
- Actionable, assigned, and time-bound.
11. **References**
- Canonical docs, specs, tickets, prior analyses.
> **Competence Hooks (per Base Context; keep lightweight):**
> - *Why this works* (≤3 bullets) — core invariants or guarantees.
> - *Common pitfalls* (≤3 bullets) — the traps we saw in evidence.
> - *Next skill unlock* (1 line) — the next capability to implement/learn.
> - *Teach-back* (1 line) — prompt the reader to restate the flow/architecture.
> **Collaboration Hooks (per Base Context):**
> - Name reviewers for **Interfaces & Contracts** and the **diagram**.
> - Short **sign-off checklist** before merging/publishing the guide.
## Do / Don’t (Base-aligned)
- **Do** quantify progress only against a defined scope with acceptance criteria.
- **Do** include minimal sample payloads/headers or I/O schemas; redact sensitive values.
- **Do** keep commentary lean; if timeboxed, move depth to **Deferred for depth**.
- **Don’t** use marketing language or meta narration (“Perfect!”, “tool called”, “new chat”).
- **Don’t** include IDE-specific chatter or internal rules unrelated to the task.
## Validation Checklist (self-check before returning)
- [ ] All Required Sections present and ordered.
- [ ] Diagram compiles (basic Mermaid syntax) and fits the problem.
- [ ] If API-based, **Auth** and **Key Headers/Params** are listed for each endpoint.
- [ ] Repro section includes commands/code **and expected outputs**.
- [ ] Every Works/Doesn’t item has **UTC timestamp**, **status/result**, and **verifiable evidence**.
- [ ] Next Steps include **Owner**, **Exit Criteria**, **Target Date**.
- [ ] Unknowns are `TODO:<missing>` — no fabrication.
- [ ] Base **Output Contract** sections satisfied (Objective/Result/Use/Run/Competence/Collaboration/Assumptions/References).
## Universal Template (fill-in)
```markdown
# <Title> — Working Notes (As of YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MMZ)
## Objective
<one line>
## Result
<link to the produced guide file or say “this document”>
## Use/Run
<how to apply/test and where to run samples>
## Context & Scope
- Audience: <role(s)>
- In scope: <bullets>
- Out of scope: <bullets>
## Artifacts & Links
- Repo/PR: <link>
- Data/Logs: <paths or links>
- Scripts/Tools: <paths>
- Dashboards: <links>
## Environment & Preconditions
- OS/Runtime: <details>
- Versions/Builds: <list>
- Services/Endpoints: <list>
- Auth mode: <Bearer/Session/Keys + how acquired>
## Architecture / Process Overview
<short prose>
```mermaid
<one suitable diagram: sequenceDiagram | flowchart | stateDiagram | gantt | classDiagram>
```
## Interfaces & Contracts
### If API-based
| Step | Method | Path/URL | Auth | Key Headers/Params | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <…> | <…> | <…> | <…> | <…> | below |
### If Data/Files
| Source | Format | Schema/Columns | Size | Validation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <…> | <…> | <…> | <…> | <…> |
### If Systems/Hardware
| Interface | Protocol | Timing/Voltage | Constraints | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <…> | <…> | <…> | <…> | <…> |
## Repro: End-to-End Procedure
```bash
# commands / curl examples (redacted where necessary)
```
```python
# minimal client library example (language appropriate)
```
> Expected output: <snippet/checks>
## What Works (Evidence)
- ✅ <short statement>
- **Time**: <YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MMZ>
- **Evidence**: file/line/log or request id/status
- **Verify at**: <where>
## What Doesn’t (Evidence & Hypotheses)
- ❌ <short failure> at `<component/endpoint/file>`
- **Time**: <YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MMZ>
- **Evidence**: <snippet/id/status>
- **Hypothesis**: <short>
- **Next probe**: <short>
## Risks, Limits, Assumptions
<bullets: limits, security boundaries, retries/backoff, idempotency, SLOs>
## Next Steps
| Owner | Task | Exit Criteria | Target Date (UTC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| <name> | <action> | <measurable outcome> | <YYYY-MM-DD> |
## References
<links/titles>
## Competence Hooks
- *Why this works*: <≤3 bullets>
- *Common pitfalls*: <≤3 bullets>
- *Next skill unlock*: <1 line>
- *Teach-back*: <1 line>
## Collaboration Hooks
- Reviewers: <names/roles>
- Sign-off checklist: <≤5 checks>
## Assumptions & Limits
<bullets>
## Deferred for depth
<park deeper material here to respect timeboxing>
```
---
**Notes for Implementers:**
- Respect Base *Do-Not* (no filler, no invented facts, no censorship).
- Prefer clarity over completeness when timeboxed; capture unknowns explicitly.
- Apply historical comment management rules (see `.cursor/rules/historical_comment_management.mdc`)
- Apply realistic time estimation rules (see `.cursor/rules/realistic_time_estimation.mdc`)
- Apply Playwright test investigation rules (see `.cursor/rules/playwright_test_investigation.mdc`)

356
.cursor/rules/playwright-test-investigation.mdc
View File

@ -0,0 +1,356 @@
---
description: when working with playwright tests either generating them or using them to test code
alwaysApply: false
---
# Playwright Test Investigation — Harbor Pilot Directive
**Author**: Matthew Raymer
**Date**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Playwright test debugging guidelines
## Objective
Provide systematic approach for investigating Playwright test failures with focus on UI element conflicts, timing issues, and selector ambiguity.
## Context & Scope
- **Audience**: Developers debugging Playwright test failures
- **In scope**: Test failure analysis, selector conflicts, UI state investigation, timing issues
- **Out of scope**: Test writing best practices, CI/CD configuration
## Artifacts & Links
- Test results: `test-results/` directory
- Error context: `error-context.md` files with page snapshots
- Trace files: `trace.zip` files for failed tests
- HTML reports: Interactive test reports with screenshots
## Environment & Preconditions
- OS/Runtime: Linux/Windows/macOS with Node.js
- Versions: Playwright test framework, browser drivers
- Services: Local test server (localhost:8080), test data setup
- Auth mode: None required for test investigation
## Architecture / Process Overview
Playwright test investigation follows a systematic diagnostic workflow that leverages built-in debugging tools and error context analysis.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
A[Test Failure] --> B[Check Error Context]
B --> C[Analyze Page Snapshot]
C --> D[Identify UI Conflicts]
D --> E[Check Trace Files]
E --> F[Verify Selector Uniqueness]
F --> G[Test Selector Fixes]
G --> H[Document Root Cause]
B --> I[Check Test Results Directory]
I --> J[Locate Failed Test Results]
J --> K[Extract Error Details]
D --> L[Multiple Alerts?]
L --> M[Button Text Conflicts?]
M --> N[Timing Issues?]
E --> O[Use Trace Viewer]
O --> P[Analyze Action Sequence]
P --> Q[Identify Failure Point]
```
## Interfaces & Contracts
### Test Results Structure
| Component | Format | Content | Validation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Error Context | Markdown | Page snapshot in YAML | Verify DOM state matches test expectations |
| Trace Files | ZIP archive | Detailed execution trace | Use `npx playwright show-trace` |
| HTML Reports | Interactive HTML | Screenshots, traces, logs | Check browser for full report |
| JSON Results | JSON | Machine-readable results | Parse for automated analysis |
### Investigation Commands
| Step | Command | Expected Output | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Locate failed tests | `find test-results -name "*test-name*"` | Test result directories | Use exact test name patterns |
| Check error context | `cat test-results/*/error-context.md` | Page snapshots | Look for UI state conflicts |
| View traces | `npx playwright show-trace trace.zip` | Interactive trace viewer | Analyze exact failure sequence |
## Repro: End-to-End Investigation Procedure
### 1. Locate Failed Test Results
```bash
# Find all results for a specific test
find test-results -name "*test-name*" -type d
# Check for error context files
find test-results -name "error-context.md" | head -5
```
### 2. Analyze Error Context
```bash
# Read error context for specific test
cat test-results/test-name-test-description-browser/error-context.md
# Look for UI conflicts in page snapshot
grep -A 10 -B 5 "button.*Yes\|button.*No" test-results/*/error-context.md
```
### 3. Check Trace Files
```bash
# List available trace files
find test-results -name "*.zip" | grep trace
# View trace in browser
npx playwright show-trace test-results/test-name/trace.zip
```
### 4. Investigate Selector Issues
```typescript
// Check for multiple elements with same text
await page.locator('button:has-text("Yes")').count(); // Should be 1
// Use more specific selectors
await page.locator('div[role="alert"]:has-text("Register") button:has-text("Yes")').click();
```
## What Works (Evidence)
- ✅ **Error context files** provide page snapshots showing exact DOM state at failure
- **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z
- **Evidence**: `test-results/60-new-activity-New-offers-for-another-user-chromium/error-context.md` shows both alerts visible
- **Verify at**: Error context files in test results directory
- ✅ **Trace files** capture detailed execution sequence for failed tests
- **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z
- **Evidence**: `trace.zip` files available for all failed tests
- **Verify at**: Use `npx playwright show-trace <filename>`
- ✅ **Page snapshots** reveal UI conflicts like multiple alerts with duplicate button text
- **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z
- **Evidence**: YAML snapshots show registration + export alerts simultaneously
- **Verify at**: Error context markdown files
## What Doesn't (Evidence & Hypotheses)
- ❌ **Generic selectors** fail with multiple similar elements at `test-playwright/testUtils.ts:161`
- **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z
- **Evidence**: `button:has-text("Yes")` matches both "Yes" and "Yes, Export Data"
- **Hypothesis**: Selector ambiguity due to multiple alerts with conflicting button text
- **Next probe**: Use more specific selectors or dismiss alerts sequentially
- ❌ **Timing-dependent tests** fail due to alert stacking at `src/views/ContactsView.vue:860,1283`
- **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z
- **Evidence**: Both alerts use identical 1000ms delays, ensuring simultaneous display
- **Hypothesis**: Race condition between alert displays creates UI conflicts
- **Next probe**: Implement alert queuing or prevent overlapping alerts
## Risks, Limits, Assumptions
- **Trace file size**: Large trace files may impact storage and analysis time
- **Browser compatibility**: Trace viewer requires specific browser support
- **Test isolation**: Shared state between tests may affect investigation results
- **Timing sensitivity**: Tests may pass/fail based on system performance
## Next Steps
| Owner | Task | Exit Criteria | Target Date (UTC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Development Team | Fix test selectors for multiple alerts | All tests pass consistently | 2025-08-22 |
| Development Team | Implement alert queuing system | No overlapping alerts with conflicting buttons | 2025-08-25 |
| Development Team | Add test IDs to alert buttons | Unique selectors for all UI elements | 2025-08-28 |
## References
- [Playwright Trace Viewer Documentation](https://playwright.dev/docs/trace-viewer)
- [Playwright Test Results](https://playwright.dev/docs/test-reporters)
- [Test Investigation Workflow](./research_diagnostic.mdc)
## Competence Hooks
- **Why this works**: Systematic investigation leverages Playwright's built-in debugging tools to identify root causes
- **Common pitfalls**: Generic selectors fail with multiple similar elements; timing issues create race conditions; alert stacking causes UI conflicts
- **Next skill unlock**: Implement unique test IDs and handle alert dismissal order in test flows
- **Teach-back**: "How would you investigate a Playwright test failure using error context, trace files, and page snapshots?"
## Collaboration Hooks
- **Reviewers**: QA team, test automation engineers
- **Sign-off checklist**: Error context analyzed, trace files reviewed, root cause identified, fix implemented and tested
## Assumptions & Limits
- Test results directory structure follows Playwright conventions
- Trace files are enabled in configuration (`trace: "retain-on-failure"`)
- Error context files contain valid YAML page snapshots
- Browser environment supports trace viewer functionality
---
**Status**: Active investigation directive
**Priority**: High
**Maintainer**: Development team
**Next Review**: 2025-09-21
# Playwright Test Investigation — Harbor Pilot Directive
**Author**: Matthew Raymer
**Date**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z
**Status**: 🎯 **ACTIVE** - Playwright test debugging guidelines
## Objective
Provide systematic approach for investigating Playwright test failures with focus on UI element conflicts, timing issues, and selector ambiguity.
## Context & Scope
- **Audience**: Developers debugging Playwright test failures
- **In scope**: Test failure analysis, selector conflicts, UI state investigation, timing issues
- **Out of scope**: Test writing best practices, CI/CD configuration
## Artifacts & Links
- Test results: `test-results/` directory
- Error context: `error-context.md` files with page snapshots
- Trace files: `trace.zip` files for failed tests
- HTML reports: Interactive test reports with screenshots
## Environment & Preconditions
- OS/Runtime: Linux/Windows/macOS with Node.js
- Versions: Playwright test framework, browser drivers
- Services: Local test server (localhost:8080), test data setup
- Auth mode: None required for test investigation
## Architecture / Process Overview
Playwright test investigation follows a systematic diagnostic workflow that leverages built-in debugging tools and error context analysis.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
A[Test Failure] --> B[Check Error Context]
B --> C[Analyze Page Snapshot]
C --> D[Identify UI Conflicts]
D --> E[Check Trace Files]
E --> F[Verify Selector Uniqueness]
F --> G[Test Selector Fixes]
G --> H[Document Root Cause]
B --> I[Check Test Results Directory]
I --> J[Locate Failed Test Results]
J --> K[Extract Error Details]
D --> L[Multiple Alerts?]
L --> M[Button Text Conflicts?]
M --> N[Timing Issues?]
E --> O[Use Trace Viewer]
O --> P[Analyze Action Sequence]
P --> Q[Identify Failure Point]
```
## Interfaces & Contracts
### Test Results Structure
| Component | Format | Content | Validation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Error Context | Markdown | Page snapshot in YAML | Verify DOM state matches test expectations |
| Trace Files | ZIP archive | Detailed execution trace | Use `npx playwright show-trace` |
| HTML Reports | Interactive HTML | Screenshots, traces, logs | Check browser for full report |
| JSON Results | JSON | Machine-readable results | Parse for automated analysis |
### Investigation Commands
| Step | Command | Expected Output | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Locate failed tests | `find test-results -name "*test-name*"` | Test result directories | Use exact test name patterns |
| Check error context | `cat test-results/*/error-context.md` | Page snapshots | Look for UI state conflicts |
| View traces | `npx playwright show-trace trace.zip` | Interactive trace viewer | Analyze exact failure sequence |
## Repro: End-to-End Investigation Procedure
### 1. Locate Failed Test Results
```bash
# Find all results for a specific test
find test-results -name "*test-name*" -type d
# Check for error context files
find test-results -name "error-context.md" | head -5
```
### 2. Analyze Error Context
```bash
# Read error context for specific test
cat test-results/test-name-test-description-browser/error-context.md
# Look for UI conflicts in page snapshot
grep -A 10 -B 5 "button.*Yes\|button.*No" test-results/*/error-context.md
```
### 3. Check Trace Files
```bash
# List available trace files
find test-results -name "*.zip" | grep trace
# View trace in browser
npx playwright show-trace test-results/test-name/trace.zip
```
### 4. Investigate Selector Issues
```typescript
// Check for multiple elements with same text
await page.locator('button:has-text("Yes")').count(); // Should be 1
// Use more specific selectors
await page.locator('div[role="alert"]:has-text("Register") button:has-text("Yes")').click();
```
## What Works (Evidence)
- ✅ **Error context files** provide page snapshots showing exact DOM state at failure
- **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z
- **Evidence**: `test-results/60-new-activity-New-offers-for-another-user-chromium/error-context.md` shows both alerts visible
- **Verify at**: Error context files in test results directory
- ✅ **Trace files** capture detailed execution sequence for failed tests
- **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z
- **Evidence**: `trace.zip` files available for all failed tests
- **Verify at**: Use `npx playwright show-trace <filename>`
- ✅ **Page snapshots** reveal UI conflicts like multiple alerts with duplicate button text
- **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z
- **Evidence**: YAML snapshots show registration + export alerts simultaneously
- **Verify at**: Error context markdown files
## What Doesn't (Evidence & Hypotheses)
- ❌ **Generic selectors** fail with multiple similar elements at `test-playwright/testUtils.ts:161`
- **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z
- **Evidence**: `button:has-text("Yes")` matches both "Yes" and "Yes, Export Data"
- **Hypothesis**: Selector ambiguity due to multiple alerts with conflicting button text
- **Next probe**: Use more specific selectors or dismiss alerts sequentially
- ❌ **Timing-dependent tests** fail due to alert stacking at `src/views/ContactsView.vue:860,1283`
- **Time**: 2025-08-21T14:22Z
- **Evidence**: Both alerts use identical 1000ms delays, ensuring simultaneous display
- **Hypothesis**: Race condition between alert displays creates UI conflicts
- **Next probe**: Implement alert queuing or prevent overlapping alerts
## Risks, Limits, Assumptions
- **Trace file size**: Large trace files may impact storage and analysis time
- **Browser compatibility**: Trace viewer requires specific browser support
- **Test isolation**: Shared state between tests may affect investigation results
- **Timing sensitivity**: Tests may pass/fail based on system performance
## Next Steps
| Owner | Task | Exit Criteria | Target Date (UTC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Development Team | Fix test selectors for multiple alerts | All tests pass consistently | 2025-08-22 |
| Development Team | Implement alert queuing system | No overlapping alerts with conflicting buttons | 2025-08-25 |
| Development Team | Add test IDs to alert buttons | Unique selectors for all UI elements | 2025-08-28 |
## References
- [Playwright Trace Viewer Documentation](https://playwright.dev/docs/trace-viewer)
- [Playwright Test Results](https://playwright.dev/docs/test-reporters)
- [Test Investigation Workflow](./research_diagnostic.mdc)
## Competence Hooks
- **Why this works**: Systematic investigation leverages Playwright's built-in debugging tools to identify root causes
- **Common pitfalls**: Generic selectors fail with multiple similar elements; timing issues create race conditions; alert stacking causes UI conflicts
- **Next skill unlock**: Implement unique test IDs and handle alert dismissal order in test flows
- **Teach-back**: "How would you investigate a Playwright test failure using error context, trace files, and page snapshots?"
## Collaboration Hooks
- **Reviewers**: QA team, test automation engineers
- **Sign-off checklist**: Error context analyzed, trace files reviewed, root cause identified, fix implemented and tested
## Assumptions & Limits
- Test results directory structure follows Playwright conventions
- Trace files are enabled in configuration (`trace: "retain-on-failure"`)
- Error context files contain valid YAML page snapshots
- Browser environment supports trace viewer functionality
---
**Status**: Active investigation directive
**Priority**: High
**Maintainer**: Development team
**Next Review**: 2025-09-21

7
test-playwright/60-new-activity.spec.ts
View File

@ -23,10 +23,11 @@ test('New offers for another user', async ({ page }) => {
await page.getByPlaceholder('URL or DID, Name, Public Key').fill(autoCreatedDid + ', A Friend'); await page.getByPlaceholder('URL or DID, Name, Public Key').fill(autoCreatedDid + ', A Friend');
await expect(page.locator('button > svg.fa-plus')).toBeVisible(); await expect(page.locator('button > svg.fa-plus')).toBeVisible();
await page.locator('button > svg.fa-plus').click(); await page.locator('button > svg.fa-plus').click();
await page.locator('div[role="alert"] button:has-text("No")').click(); // don't register await expect(page.locator('div[role="alert"] h4:has-text("Success")')).toBeVisible(); // wait for info alert to be visible…
await expect(page.locator('div[role="alert"] h4:has-text("Success")')).toBeVisible(); await page.locator('div[role="alert"] button > svg.fa-xmark').click(); // …and dismiss it
await page.locator('div[role="alert"] button > svg.fa-xmark').click(); // dismiss info alert
await expect(page.locator('div[role="alert"] button > svg.fa-xmark')).toBeHidden(); // ensure alert is gone await expect(page.locator('div[role="alert"] button > svg.fa-xmark')).toBeHidden(); // ensure alert is gone
await page.locator('div[role="alert"] button:text-is("No")').click(); // Dismiss register prompt
await page.locator('div[role="alert"] button:text-is("No, Not Now")').click(); // Dismiss export data prompt
// show buttons to make offers directly to people // show buttons to make offers directly to people
await page.getByRole('button').filter({ hasText: /See Actions/i }).click(); await page.getByRole('button').filter({ hasText: /See Actions/i }).click();

4
test-playwright/testUtils.ts
View File

@ -158,10 +158,10 @@ export async function generateAndRegisterEthrUser(page: Page): Promise<string> {
.fill(`${newDid}, ${contactName}`); .fill(`${newDid}, ${contactName}`);
await page.locator("button > svg.fa-plus").click(); await page.locator("button > svg.fa-plus").click();
// register them // register them
await page.locator('div[role="alert"] button:has-text("Yes")').click(); await page.locator('div[role="alert"] button:text-is("Yes")').click();
// wait for it to disappear because the next steps may depend on alerts being gone // wait for it to disappear because the next steps may depend on alerts being gone
await expect( await expect(
page.locator('div[role="alert"] button:has-text("Yes")') page.locator('div[role="alert"] button:text-is("Yes")')
).toBeHidden(); ).toBeHidden();
await expect(page.locator("li", { hasText: contactName })).toBeVisible(); await expect(page.locator("li", { hasText: contactName })).toBeVisible();

Write Preview
Loading…
Cancel
Save