Skip to content

chore(e2e): Reduce solid e2e tests flakines by waiting for more speci… #12455

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 11, 2024

Conversation

andreiborza
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@andreiborza andreiborza requested review from mydea, lforst, Lms24 and s1gr1d June 11, 2024 11:11
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ import { waitForError } from '@sentry-internal/test-utils';

test('captures an exception', async ({ page }) => {
const errorEventPromise = waitForError('solid', errorEvent => {
return !errorEvent.type;
return !errorEvent.type && errorEvent.transaction === '/error-boundary-example';
Copy link
Contributor

@lforst lforst Jun 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ideally you find a very specific way to wait for events, as they may leak between tests.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Any ideas? I can only think of creating a different route per test.

Copy link
Member

@Lms24 Lms24 Jun 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

different route per test

I think this is what we usually do 😬 another option would be to configure playwright to only sequentially run tests but it's also not ideal...

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The leaking I had happened between the errorboundary tests and the normal error tests, and there the transaction field is different. Maybe we can leave it as is for now and see if there's more flakiness to fix later?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You can also set tags or contexts in the tests and assert on them!

Copy link
Member

@Lms24 Lms24 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure we can always go step by step. Let's just keep in mind that this could be a further source of flakiness if we observe any more of them.

@andreiborza andreiborza merged commit 98e7793 into develop Jun 11, 2024
79 checks passed
@andreiborza andreiborza deleted the ab/fix-solid-e2e-flakiness branch June 11, 2024 13:12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants