agentleFS
peakdong68peakdong68/my-skills/skills/frontend-testing/SKILL.md

frontend-testing

Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Generate Vitest + React Testing Library tests for Dify frontend components, hooks, and utilities. Triggers on testing, spec files, coverage, Vitest, RTL, unit tests, integration tests, or write/review test requests.

18 other projects use a version of this, 3 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use backend-code-review, frontend-query-mutation and 3 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • jpoindexterSkill

    backend-code-review

    Review backend code for quality, security, maintainability, and best practices based on established checklist rules. Use when the user requests a review, analysis, or improvement of backend files (e.g., `.py`) under the `api/` directory. Do NOT use for frontend files (e.g., `.tsx`, `.ts`, `.js`). Supports pending-change review, code snippets review, and file-focused review.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • lien0219Skill

    frontend-query-mutation

    Guide for implementing Langflow frontend query and mutation patterns with Axios and TanStack React Query v5. Trigger when creating or updating API hooks in controllers/API/queries, consuming UseRequestProcessor in components, deciding whether to use useQuery or useMutation, handling conditional queries, cache invalidation, mutation error handling, or migrating legacy API calls to the query hook pattern.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • Charlie85270Skill

    component-refactoring

    Refactor high-complexity React components in Dify frontend. Use when `pnpm analyze-component --json` shows complexity > 50 or lineCount > 300, when the user asks for code splitting, hook extraction, or complexity reduction, or when `pnpm analyze-component` warns to refactor before testing; avoid for simple/well-structured components, third-party wrappers, or when the user explicitly wants testing without refactoring.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • etewiahSkill

    e2e-testing

    Playwright E2E testing and Lighthouse performance auditing. Use when setting up E2E tests, running Playwright tests, performing Lighthouse audits, or debugging E2E test failures.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • CloudflareSkill

    receiving-code-review

    Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation

    Also in 4 projects that use this

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

14 rules. 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 17 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 12

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Do NOT apply: when:

    line 24
  2. Very specific:

    Test files: ComponentName.spec.tsx (same directory as component)

    line 66
  3. Distinctive:

    Process ONE at a time: Write test → Run test → Fix if needed → Next

    line 154
  4. Distinctive:

    Verify before proceeding: Do NOT continue to next file until current passes

    line 155
  5. Distinctive:

    500+ lines: Consider splitting before testing

    line 181
  6. Distinctive:

    When assigned to test a directory/path, test ALL content within that path:

    line 190
  7. Very specific:

    Test all components, hooks, utilities in the directory (not just index file)

    line 192
  8. Distinctive:

    Use incremental approach: one file at a time, verify each before proceeding

    line 193
  9. Distinctive:

    Prefer integration testing: when writing tests for a directory:

    line 198
  10. Distinctive:

    Every test should clearly separate:

    line 211
  11. Distinctive:

    Assert: Verify expected outcomes

    line 215
  12. Distinctive:

    Test observable behavior, not implementation details

    line 219
  13. Distinctive:

    Use semantic queries (getByRole, getByLabelText)

    line 220
  14. Distinctive:

    Avoid testing internal state directly

    line 221

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 17 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Dify Frontend Testing Skill

This skill enables Claude to generate high-quality, comprehensive frontend tests for the Dify project following established conventions and best practices.

⚠️ Authoritative Source: This skill is derived from web/testing/testing.md. Use Vitest mock/timer APIs (vi.*).

When to Apply This Skill

Apply this skill when the user:

  • Asks to write tests for a component, hook, or utility
  • Asks to review existing tests for completeness
  • Mentions Vitest, React Testing Library, RTL, or spec files
  • Requests test coverage improvement
  • Uses pnpm analyze-component output as context
  • Mentions testing, unit tests, or integration tests for frontend code
  • Wants to understand testing patterns in the Dify codebase

Do NOT apply when:

  • User is asking about backend/API tests (Python/pytest)
  • User is asking about E2E tests (Playwright/Cypress)
  • User is only asking conceptual questions without code context

Quick Reference

Tech Stack

ToolVersionPurpose
Vitest4.0.16Test runner
React Testing Library16.0Component testing
jsdom-Test environment
nock14.0HTTP mocking
TypeScript5.xType safety

Key Commands

# Run all tests
pnpm test

# Watch mode
pnpm test:watch

# Run specific file
pnpm test path/to/file.spec.tsx

# Generate coverage report
pnpm test:coverage

# Analyze component complexity
pnpm analyze-component <path>

# Review existing test
pnpm analyze-component <path> --review

File Naming

  • Test files: ComponentName.spec.tsx (same directory as component)
  • Integration tests: web/__tests__/ directory

Test Structure Template

import { render, screen, fireEvent, waitFor } from '@testing-library/react'
import Component from './index'

// ✅ Import real project components (DO NOT mock these)
// import Loading from '@/app/components/base/loading'
// import { ChildComponent } from './child-component'

// ✅ Mock external dependencies only
vi.mock('@/service/api')
vi.mock('next/navigation', () => ({
  useRouter: () => ({ push: vi.fn() }),
  usePathname: () => '/test',
}))

// ✅ Zustand stores: Use real stores (auto-mocked globally)
// Set test state with: useAppStore.setState({ ... })

// Shared state for mocks (if needed)
let mockSharedState = false

describe('ComponentName', () => {
  beforeEach(() => {
    vi.clearAllMocks()  // ✅ Reset mocks BEFORE each test
    mockSharedState = false  // ✅ Reset shared state
  })

  // Rendering tests (REQUIRED)
  describe('Rendering', () => {
    it('should render without crashing', () => {
      // Arrange
      const props = { title: 'Test' }
      
      // Act
      render(<Component {...props} />)
      
      // Assert
      expect(screen.getByText('Test')).toBeInTheDocument()
    })
  })

  // Props tests (REQUIRED)
  describe('Props', () => {
    it('should apply custom className', () => {
      render(<Component className="custom" />)
      expect(screen.getByRole('button')).toHaveClass('custom')
    })
  })

  // User Interactions
  describe('User Interactions', () => {
    it('should handle click events', () => {
      const handleClick = vi.fn()
      render(<Component onClick={handleClick} />)
      
      fireEvent.click(screen.getByRole('button'))
      
      expect(handleClick).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1)
    })
  })

  // Edge Cases (REQUIRED)
  describe('Edge Cases', () => {
    it('should handle null data', () => {
      render(<Component data={null} />)
      expect(screen.getByText(/no data/i)).toBeInTheDocument()
    })

    it('should handle empty array', () => {
      render(<Component items={[]} />)
      expect(screen.getByText(/empty/i)).toBeInTheDocument()
    })
  })
})

Testing Workflow (CRITICAL)

⚠️ Incremental Approach Required

NEVER generate all test files at once. For complex components or multi-file directories:

  1. Analyze & Plan: List all files, order by complexity (simple → complex)
  2. Process ONE at a time: Write test → Run test → Fix if needed → Next
  3. Verify before proceeding: Do NOT continue to next file until current passes
For each file:
  ┌────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │ 1. Write test                          │
  │ 2. Run: pnpm test <file>.spec.tsx      │
  │ 3. PASS? → Mark complete, next file    │
  │    FAIL? → Fix first, then continue    │
  └────────────────────────────────────────┘

Complexity-Based Order

Process in this order for multi-file testing:

  1. 🟢 Utility functions (simplest)
  2. 🟢 Custom hooks
  3. 🟡 Simple components (presentational)
  4. 🟡 Medium components (state, effects)
  5. 🔴 Complex components (API, routing)
  6. 🔴 Integration tests (index files - last)

When to Refactor First

  • Complexity > 50: Break into smaller pieces before testing
  • 500+ lines: Consider splitting before testing
  • Many dependencies: Extract logic into hooks first

📖 See references/workflow.md for complete workflow details and todo list format.

Testing Strategy

Path-Level Testing (Directory Testing)

When assigned to test a directory/path, test ALL content within that path:

  • Test all components, hooks, utilities in the directory (not just index file)
  • Use incremental approach: one file at a time, verify each before proceeding
  • Goal: 100% coverage of ALL files in the directory

Integration Testing First

Prefer integration testing when writing tests for a directory:

  • ✅ Import real project components directly (including base components and siblings)
  • ✅ Only mock: API services (@/service/*), next/navigation, complex context providers
  • ❌ DO NOT mock base components (@/app/components/base/*)
  • ❌ DO NOT mock sibling/child components in the same directory

See Test Structure Template for correct import/mock patterns.

Core Principles

1. AAA Pattern (Arrange-Act-Assert)

Every test should clearly separate:

  • Arrange: Setup test data and render component
  • Act: Perform user actions
  • Assert: Verify expected outcomes

2. Black-Box Testing

  • Test observable behavior, not implementation details
  • Use semantic queries (getByRole, getByLabelText)
  • Avoid testing internal state directly
  • Prefer pattern matching over hardcoded strings in assertions:
// ❌ Avoid: hardcoded text assertions
expect(screen.getByText('Loading...')).toBeInTheDocument()

// ✅ Better: role-based queries
expect(screen.getByRole('status')).toBeInTheDocument()

// ✅ Better: pattern matching
expect(screen.getByText(/loading/i)).toBeInTheDocument()

3. Single Behavior Per Test

Each test verifies ONE user-observable behavior:

// ✅ Good: One behavior
it('should disable button when loading', () => {
  render(<Button loading />)
  expect(screen.getByRole('button')).toBeDisabled()
})

// ❌ Bad: Multiple behaviors
it('should handle loading state', () => {
  render(<Button loading />)
  expect(screen.getByRole('button')).toBeDisabled()
  expect(screen.getByText('Loading...')).toBeInTheDocument()
  expect(screen.getByRole('button')).toHaveClass('loading')
})

4. Semantic Naming

Use should <behavior> when <condition>:

it('should show error message when validation fails')
it('should call onSubmit when form is valid')
it('should disable input when isReadOnly is true')

Required Test Scenarios

Always Required (All Components)

  1. Rendering: Component renders without crashing
  2. Props: Required props, optional props, default values
  3. Edge Cases: null, undefined, empty values, boundary conditions

Conditional (When Present)

FeatureTest Focus
useStateInitial state, transitions, cleanup
useEffectExecution, dependencies, cleanup
Event handlersAll onClick, onChange, onSubmit, keyboard
API callsLoading, success, error states
RoutingNavigation, params, query strings
useCallback/useMemoReferential equality
ContextProvider values, consumer behavior
FormsValidation, submission, error display

Coverage Goals (Per File)

For each test file generated, aim for:

  • ✅ 100% function coverage
  • ✅ 100% statement coverage
  • ✅ >95% branch coverage
  • ✅ >95% line coverage

Note: For multi-file directories, process one file at a time with full coverage each. See references/workflow.md.

Detailed Guides

For more detailed information, refer to:

  • references/workflow.md - Incremental testing workflow (MUST READ for multi-file testing)
  • references/mocking.md - Mock patterns, Zustand store testing, and best practices
  • references/async-testing.md - Async operations and API calls
  • references/domain-components.md - Workflow, Dataset, Configuration testing
  • references/common-patterns.md - Frequently used testing patterns
  • references/checklist.md - Test generation checklist and validation steps

Authoritative References

Primary Specification (MUST follow)

  • web/testing/testing.md - The canonical testing specification. This skill is derived from this document.

Reference Examples in Codebase

  • web/utils/classnames.spec.ts - Utility function tests
  • web/app/components/base/button/index.spec.tsx - Component tests
  • web/__mocks__/provider-context.ts - Mock factory example

Project Configuration

  • web/vitest.config.ts - Vitest configuration
  • web/vitest.setup.ts - Test environment setup
  • web/scripts/analyze-component.js - Component analysis tool
  • Modules are not mocked automatically. Global mocks live in web/vitest.setup.ts (for example react-i18next, next/image); mock other modules like ky or mime locally in test files.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.