[code-infra] Playwright 1.49 #15493
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -7,7 +7,6 @@ import { | |
| screen, | ||
| act, | ||
| waitFor, | ||
| } from '@mui/internal-test-utils'; | ||
| import { | ||
| DataGrid, | ||
|
|
@@ -46,7 +45,7 @@ function getSelectedRowIds() { | |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| describe('<DataGrid /> - Row selection', () => { | ||
| const { render } = createRenderer(); | ||
|
|
||
| const defaultData = getBasicGridData(4, 2); | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -592,26 +591,27 @@ describe('<DataGrid /> - Row selection', () => { | |
| expect(getSelectedRowIds()).to.deep.equal([]); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| // Skip on everything as this is failing on all environments on ubuntu/CI | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. have you considered rewriting it with async syntax, not using fake timers, but trying to rely on DOM assertions, like checking if the new item has a ripple effect and only one DOM element has a ripple effect..? 🤔 There was a problem hiding this comment. Yeah, that was the previously commented code. I only in this last commit reverted the ripple logic to the original one. 815810d |
||
| // describe('ripple', () => { | ||
| // clock.withFakeTimers(); | ||
|
|
||
| // it('should keep only one ripple visible when navigating between checkboxes', async function test() { | ||
| // if (isJSDOM) { | ||
| // // JSDOM doesn't fire "blur" when .focus is called in another element | ||
| // // FIXME Firefox doesn't show any ripple | ||
| // this.skip(); | ||
| // } | ||
| // render(<TestDataGridSelection checkboxSelection />); | ||
| // const cell = getCell(1, 1); | ||
| // fireUserEvent.mousePress(cell); | ||
| // fireEvent.keyDown(cell, { key: 'ArrowLeft' }); | ||
| // fireEvent.keyDown(getCell(1, 0).querySelector('input')!, { key: 'ArrowUp' }); | ||
| // clock.runToLast(); // Wait for transition | ||
| // await flushMicrotasks(); | ||
| // expect(document.querySelectorAll('.MuiTouchRipple-rippleVisible')).to.have.length(1); | ||
| // }); | ||
| // }); | ||
| // }); | ||
|
|
||
| describe('prop: isRowSelectable', () => { | ||
| it('should update the selected rows when the isRowSelectable prop changes', () => { | ||
|
|
||
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems different to the previous behavior on L516. 🤔
Did you have problems with?
The same question applies to the whole file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🤔 It should probably work fine.
My main grip is that using
.focus()is not really how the user uses the keyboard. So if you want to test that your behaviour is working properly, you should emulate the entire action.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would leave this call for @mui/xgrid, but maybe we can create an alternative
getColumnHeaderCellorfocusColumnHeaderCellfunction, which would click on the respective cell? 🤔There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I didn't add clicking on the cell itself cause I don't know if that causes other side effects
Eg: if we have selectable rows and we click on column 0, then it "selects" the row.
Focusing through keyboard interactions seemed more safe.
The main difference on why it has more "keypresses" than before is because the default focus goes to the "effective" first entry on the header if we press
tab, but these tests are testing the column groups, which means they were first focusing on the first ever element on the headergetColumnHeaderCell(0, 0), rather than the element that gets the focus first, which in this case would begetColumnHeaderCell(0, 2)So, this means
Previous
getColumnHeaderCell(0, 0)H - Header
C - Content Cell
H00[Tab]->getColumnHeaderCell(0, 2)H02I simply moved the focus back to the
getColumnHeaderCell(0, 0)from the original tests.Now, it might be that the element at
0,2shouldn't get focus on tab, which would be another problem unrelated to this PR IMO 😅But the tests are comparable between themselves and the assertions didn't change.