Fix formatting in Command Log test results. by sainthkh · Pull Request #5619 · cypress-io/cypress · GitHub

sainthkh · 2019-11-07T01:58:01Z

Closes Commands UI assert errors should clearly delineate integers from strings. #25
Closes Incorrectly formatted log message for "have.all.keys" assertion #753
Closes asterisks displaying instead of single quotes in Command Log assertion #1360

I fixed these 3 issues together because implementing one logic can affect other issues.

User facing changelog

Formats number strings in test results in quotes. In other words, 25 -> '25'.
Formats keys properly.
Formats when there are empty spaces between ** and **.

Additional details

Why was this change necessary:

Issue #25

The ASSERT error (in red background) on the commands UI does not signify whether my value is a string or not.

Issue #753

All versions of Cypress when making this assertion
it('expect - assert shape of an object', function(){
  const person = {
    name: 'Joe',
    age: 20
  }
  expect(person).to.have.all.keys('name', 'age')
})
Look at the reporter message - looks very weird

Issue #1360

Command Log for assertion chain includes confusing asterisks. I suspect it may be replacing \n with **.

What is affected by this change?

Not much. I added a few tests to show this case clearly.

Any implementation details to explain?

Not much. Just fixed some regexes.

How has the user experience changed?

Before: above.

After:

PR Tasks

Have tests been added/updated?
~~Has a PR for user-facing changes been opened in cypress-documentation?~~
~~Have API changes been updated in the type definitions?~~
~~Have new configuration options been added to the cypress.schema.json?~~

cypress-bot · 2019-11-07T01:58:04Z

Thanks for the contribution! Below are some guidelines Cypress uses when doing PR reviews.

Please write [WIP] in the title of your Pull Request if your PR is not ready for review - someone will review your PR as soon as the [WIP] is removed.
Please familiarize yourself with the PR Review Checklist and feel free to make updates on your PR based on these guidelines.

PR Review Checklist

If any of the following requirements can't be met, leave a comment in the review selecting 'Request changes', otherwise 'Approve'.

User Experience

The feature/bugfix is self-documenting from within the product.
The change provides the end user with a way to fix their problem (no dead ends).

Functionality

The code works and performs its intended function with the correct logic.
Performance has been factored in (for example, the code cleans up after itself to not cause memory leaks).
The code guards against edge cases and invalid input and has tests to cover it.

Maintainability

The code is readable (too many nested 'if's are a bad sign).
Names used for variables, methods, etc, clearly describe their function.
The code is easy to understood and there are relevant comments explaining.
New algorithms are documented in the code with link(s) to external docs (flowcharts, w3c, chrome, firefox).
There are comments containing link(s) to the addressed issue (in tests and code).

Quality

The change does not reimplement code.
There's not a module from the ecosystem that should be used instead.
There is no redundant or duplicate code.
There are no irrelevant comments left in the code.
Tests are testing the code’s intended functionality in the best way possible.

Internal

The original issue has been tagged with a release in ZenHub.

brian-mann · 2019-11-08T00:40:17Z

Let's get some eyes on this and get this out in 3.6.1 @cypress-io/test-runner team

kuceb · 2019-11-08T17:12:40Z

We'll need actual assertions on the output during the tests that have been added. Right now there's no way for them to fail

kuceb · 2019-11-08T17:13:57Z

+    it('preserves quotation marks in empty string', function () {
+      try {
+        expect(42).to.eq('')
+      } catch (error) {} /* eslint-disable-line no-empty */
+    })
+
+    it('preserves quotation marks if escaped', function () {
+      expect('\'cypress\'').to.eq('\'cypress\'')
+    })
+
+    it('removes quotation marks in DOM elements', function () {
+      cy.get('body').should('contain', 'div')
+    })
+
+    it('removes quotation marks in strings', function () {
+      expect('cypress').to.eq('cypress')
+    })
+
+    it('removes quotation marks in objects', function () {
+      expect({ foo: 'bar' }).to.deep.eq({ foo: 'bar' })
+    })
+
+    it('formats keys properly for "have.all.keys"', function () {
+      const person = {
+        name: 'Joe',
+        age: 20,
+      }
+
+      expect(person).to.have.all.keys('name', 'age')
+    })
+  })


would these have failed before the src changes? We should add assertions on the log output to turn these into valid tests

Agreed. We need tests that actually verify this behavior. It might be worthwhile to move out and expose the removeOrKeepSingleQuotesBetweenStars and replaceArgMessages so they can be tested unit-style.

I've checked the tests in assertions_spec.js and mimicked the tests it uses to validate message fixes I've done.

kuceb · 2019-11-08T20:52:19Z

+        age: 20,
+      }
+
+      expect(person).to.have.all.keys('name', 'age')


this one's showing up for me without the bold

I've added tests for "boldness". If the tests failed and something like that happens, please tell me.

p.s. I doubt it has something to do with the font setting. When I look at them closely, name and age are a little bit bolder than other texts, I guess. (When we compare a in name of the object and a in have keys. We can see that the former a is a bit darker than the latter a.

It would be great if we have other messages to compare the boldness.

sainthkh · 2019-11-11T03:10:38Z

Added one more issue: asterisks displaying instead of single quotes in Command Log assertion #1360. Because I thought it is also related with this PR.
build-binary failed because of tar.extract. It seems that it's unrelated to this PR.

kuceb · 2019-11-11T21:52:47Z

+    it('preserves quotation marks if escaped', (done) => {
+      expectMarkdown(
+        () => expect(`\'cypress\'`).to.eq(`\'cypress\'`),
+        // ****'cypress'**** -> ** for emphasizing result string  + ** for emphasizing the entire result.


thanks for adding this comment 🙏

Actually, when I saw this, I was too wondering why this happened.

And thought many developers who will read this code later would be confused when they saw ****. That's why I've added this comment.

kuceb · 2019-11-12T15:20:08Z

Awesome job @sainthkh!

sainthkh added 4 commits November 7, 2019 10:41

Preserve number strings.

a3f528e

Fixed warning caused by exception.

da92e32

Fixed excessive quotation marks. And added related tests to show this.

515f359

Show keys properly.

b0e301a

brian-mann requested review from chrisbreiding, jennifer-shehane and kuceb November 8, 2019 00:39

jennifer-shehane changed the title ~~Fix formatting in test results.~~ Fix formatting in Command Log test results. Nov 8, 2019

kuceb suggested changes Nov 8, 2019

View reviewed changes

Comment thread packages/driver/test/cypress/integration/commands/assertions_spec.js Outdated

Comment thread packages/driver/test/cypress/integration/commands/assertions_spec.js Outdated

kuceb reviewed Nov 8, 2019

View reviewed changes

sainthkh added 4 commits November 9, 2019 09:24

Merge branch 'develop' into issue-25-fix

a6cd302

Minor fixes: arrowify, use backtick.

f038a89

Added tests.

89a64e4

Fixed confusing asterisks.

da2efb4

kuceb reviewed Nov 11, 2019

View reviewed changes

kuceb approved these changes Nov 11, 2019

View reviewed changes

kuceb merged commit d65ee30 into cypress-io:develop Nov 12, 2019

This was referenced Nov 12, 2019

Commands UI assert errors should clearly delineate integers from strings. #25

Closed

Incorrectly formatted log message for "have.all.keys" assertion #753

Closed

asterisks displaying instead of single quotes in Command Log assertion #1360

Closed

jennifer-shehane mentioned this pull request Jan 7, 2020

Better messaging when failing by type #2050

Closed

Conversation

sainthkh commented Nov 7, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

User facing changelog

Additional details

Why was this change necessary:

Issue #25

Issue #753

Issue #1360

What is affected by this change?

Any implementation details to explain?

How has the user experience changed?

PR Tasks

Uh oh!

cypress-bot Bot commented Nov 7, 2019

PR Review Checklist

User Experience

Functionality

Maintainability

Quality

Internal

Uh oh!

brian-mann commented Nov 8, 2019

Uh oh!

kuceb commented Nov 8, 2019

Uh oh!

kuceb Nov 8, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

chrisbreiding Nov 8, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sainthkh Nov 11, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kuceb Nov 8, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sainthkh Nov 11, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sainthkh commented Nov 11, 2019

Uh oh!

kuceb Nov 11, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

sainthkh Nov 12, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kuceb commented Nov 12, 2019

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

sainthkh commented Nov 7, 2019 •

edited

Loading

sainthkh Nov 11, 2019 •

edited

Loading

sainthkh Nov 11, 2019 •

edited

Loading