Fixed Flaky Test in cypress develop branch #9492
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@nihal467 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 1 minutes and 51 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
WalkthroughThe pull request modifies several Cypress commands in Changes
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
✅ Deploy Preview for care-ohc ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
Deploying care-fe with
|
| Latest commit: |
8be3a3c
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://87278e5e.care-fe.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://flaky-cypress.care-fe.pages.dev |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
cypress/support/commands.ts (1)
183-185: Good addition to prevent flaky tests!The new assertion ensures that the selection is properly reflected in the UI before proceeding. This makes the test more reliable by verifying the end state.
Consider these additional improvements for even better reliability:
Cypress.Commands.add( "clickAndSelectOption", (element: string, reference: string) => { cy.get(element) + .should('be.visible') + .should('be.enabled') .click() .then(() => { - cy.get("[role='option']").contains(reference).click(); + cy.get("[role='option']") + .contains(reference) + .should('be.visible') + .click(); }) .then(() => { - cy.get(element).should("contain", reference); + cy.get(element).should("contain", reference, { timeout: 10000 }); }); }, );These changes:
- Verify element is visible and enabled before clicking
- Ensure option is visible before clicking
- Add a longer timeout for slow rendering scenarios
cypress/support/commands.ts
Outdated
| }) | ||
| .then(() => { | ||
| cy.get(element).should("contain", reference); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Verification shows inconsistent assertion patterns
Looking at the implementations:
clickAndSelectOptionincludes a verification that the selected value is contained in the elementtypeAndSelectOptionandclickAndMultiSelectOptiondon't verify the final state after selection- All commands are frequently used across the test suite, as seen in the usage patterns
Adding similar assertions to the other selection commands would indeed improve test reliability by ensuring the selection was successful:
- In
typeAndSelectOption: Add.then(() => { cy.get(element).should("contain", referance); }); - In
clickAndMultiSelectOption: Add verification for each selected option
🔗 Analysis chain
Consider similar improvements for related commands
For consistency and reliability, consider adding similar assertions to related commands like typeAndSelectOption and clickAndMultiSelectOption. This would help prevent flaky tests across all selection scenarios.
Let's verify the usage of these commands to assess the impact:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for usage of selection commands in test files
echo "Searching for selection command usage patterns..."
rg -A 2 "typeAndSelectOption|clickAndMultiSelectOption|clickAndSelectOption" --type cy
Length of output: 224
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for selection command usage in all files
echo "Searching for selection command usage patterns..."
rg -A 2 "typeAndSelectOption|clickAndMultiSelectOption|clickAndSelectOption" --type ts
# Search for command definitions
echo -e "\nSearching for command definitions..."
ast-grep --pattern 'Cypress.Commands.add("$_", function' cypress/support/commands.ts
Length of output: 15435
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the implementation of these commands
echo "Examining selection command implementations..."
rg -B 2 -A 10 'Cypress\.Commands\.add\("(typeAndSelectOption|clickAndMultiSelectOption|clickAndSelectOption)"' cypress/support/commands.ts
Length of output: 243
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try with ast-grep to find the command implementations
echo "Searching for typeAndSelectOption implementation..."
ast-grep --pattern 'Cypress.Commands.add("typeAndSelectOption", $_)' cypress/support/commands.ts
echo -e "\nSearching for clickAndMultiSelectOption implementation..."
ast-grep --pattern 'Cypress.Commands.add("clickAndMultiSelectOption", $_)' cypress/support/commands.ts
echo -e "\nSearching for clickAndSelectOption implementation..."
ast-grep --pattern 'Cypress.Commands.add("clickAndSelectOption", $_)' cypress/support/commands.ts
Length of output: 2873
CARE
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project |
CARE
|
| Branch Review |
flaky-cypress
|
| Run status |
|
| Run duration | 04m 36s |
| Commit |
|
| Committer | Mohammed Nihal |
| View all properties for this run ↗︎ | |
| Test results | |
|---|---|
Failures
|
0
|
Flaky
|
0
|
Pending
|
0
|
Skipped
|
0
|
Passing
|
139
|
| View all changes introduced in this branch ↗︎ | |
…nt in the input field
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
cypress/support/index.ts (1)
42-45: LGTM! Consider adding JSDoc comments.The new
typeAndVerifyValuemethod signature is well-structured and follows the existing patterns. To improve maintainability, consider adding JSDoc comments describing the parameters and expected behavior.+ /** + * Types a value into an element and verifies that the value was entered correctly + * @param element - The selector for the target element + * @param reference - The value to type and verify + * @returns Chainable<Element> + */ typeAndVerifyValue( element: string, reference: string, ): Chainable<Element>;cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientLogupdate.ts (1)
62-62: LGTM! Consider applying the same pattern to similar methods.The change to use
typeAndVerifyValueimproves stability. For consistency, consider applying the same pattern to similar methods in this class that perform type operations (e.g.,typePulse,typeTemperature,typeRespiratory,typeSpo2).Example refactor for similar methods:
typePulse(pulse: string) { - cy.get("#pulse").click().type(pulse); + cy.typeAndVerifyValue("#pulse", pulse); } typeTemperature(temperature: string) { - cy.get("#temperature").click().type(temperature); + cy.typeAndVerifyValue("#temperature", temperature); } typeRespiratory(respiratory: string) { - cy.get("#resp").click().type(respiratory); + cy.typeAndVerifyValue("#resp", respiratory); } typeSpo2(spo: string) { - cy.get("#ventilator_spo2").click().type(spo); + cy.typeAndVerifyValue("#ventilator_spo2", spo); }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientLogupdate.ts(1 hunks)cypress/support/commands.ts(2 hunks)cypress/support/index.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- cypress/support/commands.ts
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientCreation.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-324: Consider improving the page object structure and error handlingWhile the class follows good practices, consider these improvements:
- Group related methods (e.g., all verification methods together)
- Add custom error messages to assertions
- Consider splitting into smaller, focused classes (e.g., separate creation from verification)
- Add retry strategies for flaky operations
Example improvement for assertions:
-cy.get("#patient-name-consultation") +cy.get("#patient-name-consultation", { timeout: 10000 }) .should("be.visible") - .contains(patientName); + .contains(patientName, `Patient name "${patientName}" not found in consultation`);cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientRegistration.cy.ts (2)
44-44: Consider using beforeEach for test data generationThe test data initialization could be moved to
beforeEachto ensure fresh data for each test case, reducing potential test interdependencies.describe("Patient Creation with consultation", () => { // ... existing setup ... + let patientOneName: string; + let patientOneAddress: string; + + beforeEach(() => { + cy.restoreLocalStorage(); + cy.clearLocalStorage(/filters--.+/); + cy.awaitUrl("/patients"); + + // Generate fresh data for each test + patientOneName = generatePatientName(); + patientOneAddress = generateRandomAddress(true); + });Also applies to: 51-51, 54-54
Line range hint
124-146: Consider adding more comprehensive verificationsWhile the current verifications are good, consider adding assertions for:
- Address verification
- Navigation state after operations
- Form reset after successful operations
Add these verifications after the existing checks:
// Verify address cy.get('[data-testid="patient-address"]').should('contain', patientOneAddress); // Verify navigation state cy.location('pathname').should('include', '/patients'); // Verify form reset cy.get('[data-testid="patient-form"]').should('not.exist');
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientRegistration.cy.ts(5 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientConsultation.ts(1 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientCreation.ts(2 hunks)cypress/pageobject/utils/constants.ts(1 hunks)cypress/support/commands.ts(2 hunks)cypress/support/index.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- cypress/support/commands.ts
- cypress/support/index.ts
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientRegistration.cy.ts (1)
Learnt from: Jacobjeevan
PR: ohcnetwork/care_fe#9145
File: cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientConsultationCreation.cy.ts:93-94
Timestamp: 2024-11-18T10:48:08.501Z
Learning: In `cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientConsultationCreation.cy.ts`, bed capacity verification assertions after patient admission are already being performed elsewhere, so adding them here is unnecessary.
🔇 Additional comments (4)
cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientConsultation.ts (1)
68-68: LGTM! Selector change improves test stability.
The change from "#consultationpage-header" to "#patient-details" is a good improvement as it:
- Uses a more semantic and specific selector
- Includes text verification "Patient Details"
- Reduces the likelihood of flaky tests due to layout changes
cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientCreation.ts (1)
99-102: Document and verify the need to skip age verification
The addition of true to skip verification in clickAndSelectOption might be masking underlying issues. While this could fix flaky tests, it's important to:
- Document why verification needs to be skipped
- Investigate if there are underlying timing or state management issues
Let's analyze the age selection behavior:
✅ Verification successful
Skip verification parameter is a valid test optimization
Based on the implementation in cypress/support/commands.ts, the skipVerification parameter is a well-documented feature of the clickAndSelectOption command that allows bypassing the verification step which checks if the selected option is displayed in the element. This is a valid test optimization when the subsequent steps implicitly verify the selection was successful, which is exactly the case here - the code immediately types into the age input field after selection.
- The age selection is still performed correctly through
cy.get("[role='option']").contains(reference).click() - The verification is skipped but the actual functionality is still tested by the following steps:
cy.clickSubmitButton("Confirm")cy.get("#age").clear().type(age)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for age-related test failures and timeouts
rg -B 2 -A 2 "timeout.*age|fail.*age" "cypress/e2e/**/*.cy.{js,ts}"
# Find other uses of age selection to see if they have similar issues
ast-grep --pattern 'clickAndSelectOption($_, "Age")'
Length of output: 192
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try different approaches to gather information
# 1. First, let's find all Cypress test files
fd "\.cy\.(js|ts)$"
# 2. Search for age-related test failures in all files
rg -B 2 -A 2 "timeout.*age|fail.*age"
# 3. Find all usages of clickAndSelectOption with Age
rg -B 2 -A 2 'clickAndSelectOption.*Age'
# 4. Look at the implementation of clickAndSelectOption command
rg -B 2 -A 2 "Cypress.Commands.add.*clickAndSelectOption" "cypress/support/"
# 5. Check for any comments or documentation about age verification
rg "age.*verification|verification.*age" "cypress/"
Length of output: 37352
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's look at the implementation of clickAndSelectOption command and its usage context
# 1. Find the implementation of clickAndSelectOption in support files
fd "commands\.(js|ts)$" "cypress/support/" --exec cat {}
# 2. Look for any test failures or issues related to age selection in commit history
rg -B 2 -A 2 "patientAge|age selection|age verification" "cypress/"
# 3. Look for any comments or documentation about the skipVerification parameter
rg -B 2 -A 2 "skipVerification|skip.*verification" "cypress/"
Length of output: 9914
cypress/pageobject/utils/constants.ts (1)
179-179: LGTM!
The export statement is correctly updated to include the new generatePatientName function.
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientRegistration.cy.ts (1)
Line range hint 1-15: LGTM! Imports are well-organized
The imports are properly structured, with the new PatientConsultationPage and utility functions correctly imported.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientLogupdate.ts (1)
Line range hint
89-197: LGTM! Consider consistent indentation.The implementation of
clearBeforeTypingparameter is consistent across all methods. However, there are some inconsistencies in indentation (e.g., intypeOxygenFlowRate,typeVentilatorSpo2, etc.).cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts (1)
323-324: LGTM! Consider documenting the clearBeforeTyping usage pattern.The selective use of
clearBeforeTyping: truein edit scenarios is appropriate. Consider adding a comment explaining when this parameter should be used to help other test authors.Add a comment like:
// Set clearBeforeTyping to true when modifying existing values in edit scenarios
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts(3 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientRegistration.cy.ts(5 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientCreation.ts(1 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientLogupdate.ts(4 hunks)cypress/support/commands.ts(3 hunks)cypress/support/index.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- cypress/support/index.ts
- cypress/support/commands.ts
- cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientCreation.ts
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientRegistration.cy.ts (1)
Learnt from: Jacobjeevan
PR: ohcnetwork/care_fe#9145
File: cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientConsultationCreation.cy.ts:93-94
Timestamp: 2024-11-18T10:48:08.501Z
Learning: In `cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientConsultationCreation.cy.ts`, bed capacity verification assertions after patient admission are already being performed elsewhere, so adding them here is unnecessary.
🔇 Additional comments (6)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientRegistration.cy.ts (3)
Line range hint 1-15: LGTM! Well-organized imports with proper utility functions
The addition of utility functions for generating test data will help reduce test flakiness by avoiding hardcoded values.
30-38: LGTM! Good use of data generation utilities
The setup properly utilizes the utility functions for generating test data, which improves test reliability and maintainability.
139-143: Replace hardcoded patient name with generated data using existing utility
The test should use the generatePatientName() utility function that's already available in the codebase and is being used in other test cases. This will make the test more robust by using dynamically generated data.
- const patientName = "Dummy Patient Two";
+ const patientName = generatePatientName();
patientPage.visitPatient(patientName);cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientLogupdate.ts (2)
61-82: LGTM! Consistent implementation across vital sign inputs.
The changes successfully address previous review comments by implementing a consistent pattern across all vital sign input methods.
38-48: LGTM! Verify the new parameter's impact.
The addition of the clearBeforeTyping parameter with a default value of false is well-implemented. The implementation is consistent across methods.
Let's verify the usage of these methods with the new parameter:
✅ Verification successful
LGTM! The new parameter is safely introduced
The verification shows that all existing calls to typePhysicalExamination and typeOtherDetails in cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts use the single-argument form, which is compatible with the new optional parameter defaulting to false. This maintains backward compatibility while allowing the new functionality to be used when needed.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for calls to these methods to ensure compatibility
rg "type(PhysicalExamination|OtherDetails)\(" -A 1
Length of output: 1632
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts (1)
16-16: LGTM! Good use of constants.
The addition of patientModifiedCategory constant and its usage improves test readability and maintainability.
Also applies to: 154-154
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
cypress/pageobject/Facility/FacilityCreation.ts (1)
58-61: LGTM! Consider adding a comment explaining skipVerification usageThe use of
skipVerification: trueis appropriate for phone numbers where formatting might cause verification issues. However, it would be helpful to document why verification is skipped.Consider adding a comment:
cy.typeIntoField("#phone_number", phoneNumber, { clearBeforeTyping, + // Skip verification due to potential phone number formatting differences skipVerification: true, });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
cypress/pageobject/Facility/FacilityCreation.ts(1 hunks)cypress/support/commands.ts(3 hunks)cypress/support/index.ts(2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- cypress/support/index.ts
🔇 Additional comments (2)
cypress/support/commands.ts (2)
178-189: LGTM! Good addition of skipVerification parameter
The addition of the skipVerification parameter with a default value of false maintains backward compatibility while providing flexibility for cases where immediate verification might cause flakiness.
256-270: LGTM! Improved reliability with visibility check and clear option
The changes improve test reliability by:
- Adding a visibility check before interaction
- Supporting clearing of input before typing
- Adding flexible verification control
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientLogupdate.ts (1)
23-27: LGTM! Consider extracting common verification logic.The new verification methods are well-structured. However, since both methods follow the same pattern, consider extracting the common verification logic into a reusable helper method.
+private verifySelectField(selector: string, expectedText: string) { + cy.get(selector) + .should("be.visible") + .should("contain.text", expectedText); +} -verifyRoundType(roundType: string) { - cy.get("#rounds_type") - .should("be.visible") - .should("contain.text", roundType); -} +verifyRoundType(roundType: string) { + this.verifySelectField("#rounds_type", roundType); +} -verifyPatientCategory(category: string) { - cy.get("#patientCategory") - .should("be.visible") - .should("contain.text", category); -} +verifyPatientCategory(category: string) { + this.verifySelectField("#patientCategory", category); +}Also applies to: 44-48
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-391: Consider adding negative test cases for input validation.While the test coverage is comprehensive for positive scenarios, consider adding test cases for:
- Invalid vital sign values
- Empty required fields
- Invalid date formats
- Network error handling
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts(3 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientLogupdate.ts(5 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientLogupdate.ts (1)
50-56: LGTM! Consistent implementation of clearBeforeTyping parameter.
The addition of the clearBeforeTyping parameter with a default value of false across all type methods is well-implemented and maintains backward compatibility. The consistent use of cy.typeIntoField addresses the previous concerns about vital sign input methods.
Also applies to: 59-60, 73-74, 77-78, 81-82, 85-86, 89-90, 93-94, 101-102, 156-157, 168-171, 174-177, 184-187, 190-193, 200-203, 206-209
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts (2)
16-16: LGTM! Good use of verification before state changes.
The addition of the patientModifiedCategory constant and the verification of current state before modification improves test reliability and maintainability.
Also applies to: 154-156
325-326: LGTM! Verify if this fixes the flaky test issue.
The use of clearBeforeTyping=true for vital signs should help prevent input field issues. Please verify if this change resolves the original flaky test problem.
✅ Verification successful
LGTM! The implementation supports the clearBeforeTyping functionality
Looking at the implementation, the typeSystolic and typeDiastolic methods properly utilize Cypress's typeIntoField custom command with the clearBeforeTyping option. This change ensures clean input state by clearing the field before typing new values, which is a good practice for preventing input-related test flakiness.
- Both methods correctly accept and pass through the
clearBeforeTypingparameter to the underlyingtypeIntoFieldcommand - The implementation is consistent with other vital sign input methods in the class
- The change aligns with best practices for handling form inputs in Cypress tests
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any related flaky test reports or issues
rg -i "flaky.*systolic|systolic.*flaky" .
Length of output: 43
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the implementation of typeSystolic and typeDiastolic methods to understand the change
ast-grep --pattern 'typeSystolic($_) {
$$$
}'
ast-grep --pattern 'typeDiastolic($_) {
$$$
}'
# Also check for any test failures or issues related to blood pressure input
rg -i "blood pressure.*fail|fail.*blood pressure|bp.*fail|fail.*bp" .
Length of output: 172
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's look for the page object class implementation
fd "PatientLogupdate" . --type file --exec cat {}
# Also check for any recent changes or discussions about flaky tests
rg -i "flaky.*test|test.*flaky" .
Length of output: 6230
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts (1)
326-327: Consider using a named parameter for better readability.While adding the
trueparameter likely fixes input clearing issues, using a boolean parameter makes the code less self-documenting. Consider making the intent clearer:- patientLogupdate.typeSystolic(patientModifiedSystolic, true); - patientLogupdate.typeDiastolic(patientModifiedDiastolic, true); + patientLogupdate.typeSystolic(patientModifiedSystolic, { clearBeforeTyping: true }); + patientLogupdate.typeDiastolic(patientModifiedDiastolic, { clearBeforeTyping: true });cypress/pageobject/Hcx/HcxClaims.ts (2)
Line range hint
2-7: Consider enhancing error handling for better test stability.The current implementation could be made more robust by:
- Adding retry logic for flaky scenarios
- Including more detailed error messages
Consider this enhancement:
selectEligiblePolicy(policy: string) { + const maxAttempts = 3; + const retryDelay = 1000; + let attempts = 0; + + const attemptSelection = () => { cy.get("#select-insurance-policy", { timeout: 10000 }) .should("be.visible") .and("not.be.disabled"); - cy.clickAndSelectOption("#select-insurance-policy", policy, true); + return cy.clickAndSelectOption("#select-insurance-policy", policy, true) + .then(() => { + // Verify selection was successful + cy.get("#select-insurance-policy").should("contain", policy); + }); + }; + + const retryOnFailure = () => { + attempts++; + if (attempts < maxAttempts) { + cy.wait(retryDelay); + return attemptSelection().catch(retryOnFailure); + } + throw new Error(`Failed to select policy "${policy}" after ${maxAttempts} attempts`); + }; + + return attemptSelection().catch(retryOnFailure); }
Line range hint
2-4: Consider adding logging for better debugging of flaky tests.Adding detailed logging can help identify patterns in test failures and make debugging easier.
Consider adding:
selectEligiblePolicy(policy: string) { + cy.log(`Attempting to select policy: ${policy}`); cy.get("#select-insurance-policy", { timeout: 10000 }) .should("be.visible") .and("not.be.disabled");
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts(4 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Hcx/HcxClaims.ts(1 hunks)cypress/pageobject/utils/advanceFilterHelpers.ts(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts (3)
16-16: LGTM!
The new constant follows the established naming convention and is well-placed with other test constants.
154-156: Good addition of state verification steps!
Adding verification steps for round type and patient category before modification helps ensure test stability by validating preconditions. This is a good practice for addressing flaky tests.
289-289: LGTM!
The round type verification is consistent with the state validation pattern used throughout the test suite.
cypress/pageobject/Hcx/HcxClaims.ts (1)
6-6: Verify if skipping verification is the best approach to fix flaky tests.
While skipping verification might fix the flaky test, it could potentially mask underlying timing or state management issues. Consider these alternatives:
- Implement a more robust waiting strategy using
cy.waitUntil - Add explicit assertions for the selected value after selection
Let's analyze the usage patterns to understand the impact:
cypress/pageobject/utils/advanceFilterHelpers.ts (2)
Line range hint 1-64: Consider implementing a more robust location selection chain
The current implementation handles State -> District -> Local Body -> Ward selection as independent operations, which might contribute to test flakiness. Since these are typically dependent selections (each choice filters the next dropdown), consider implementing a more robust chain of commands.
Suggestions:
- Create a custom Cypress command that handles the entire location selection chain
- Implement proper waiting for API responses between selections
- Add validation to ensure each selection is complete before proceeding to the next
Example implementation:
// In commands.ts
Cypress.Commands.add('selectLocation', (
state: string,
district: string,
localBody?: string,
ward?: string
) => {
// Select state and wait for district API to complete
cy.get('#state').should('be.enabled').select(state);
cy.intercept('GET', '**/api/districts**').as('getDistricts');
cy.wait('@getDistricts');
// Select district and wait for local body API
cy.get('#district').should('be.enabled').select(district);
if (localBody) {
cy.intercept('GET', '**/api/local-bodies**').as('getLocalBodies');
cy.wait('@getLocalBodies');
cy.get('#local_body').should('be.enabled').select(localBody);
if (ward) {
cy.intercept('GET', '**/api/wards**').as('getWards');
cy.wait('@getWards');
cy.get('#ward').should('be.enabled').select(ward);
}
}
});
// Usage in tests
advanceFilters.selectLocation('State1', 'District1', 'LocalBody1', 'Ward1');This approach would:
- Reduce test flakiness by properly waiting for API responses
- Make tests more maintainable and easier to debug
- Better represent the actual user interaction flow
Let's verify the API endpoints and their response structure:
7-7: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider replacing fixed waits with more reliable synchronization methods
While increasing wait times from 200ms to 1000ms might temporarily fix flaky tests, it's not an ideal solution as it:
- Significantly increases test execution time
- Doesn't guarantee test stability (might still fail under heavy load)
- Treats the symptom rather than the root cause
Consider these more reliable approaches:
selectState(state: string) {
- cy.wait(1000);
+ // Wait for the dropdown to be populated
+ cy.get("#state").should("not.be.disabled")
+ .find("option").should("have.length.gt", 1);
cy.clickAndSelectOption("#state", state);
},
selectDistrict(district: string) {
- cy.wait(1000);
+ // Wait for the dropdown to be populated
+ cy.get("#district").should("not.be.disabled")
+ .find("option").should("have.length.gt", 1);
cy.clickAndSelectOption("#district", district);
},This approach:
- Explicitly waits for the dropdown to be enabled and populated
- Is faster as it continues as soon as the condition is met
- More reliably indicates when the element is actually ready for interaction
Let's verify if there are any API calls that populate these dropdowns:
Also applies to: 12-12, 17-17, 22-22
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
@nihal467 Your efforts have helped advance digital healthcare and TeleICU systems. 🚀 Thank you for taking the time out to make CARE better. We hope you continue to innovate and contribute; your impact is immense! 🙌 |
Proposed Changes
@ohcnetwork/care-fe-code-reviewers
Merge Checklist
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
clickAndSelectOptioncommand with an optional parameter to skip verification.Bug Fixes
clickAndSelectOptioncommand by confirming expected outcomes post-interaction.Chores