frontend-typescript-testing
Skill236 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub
Designs frontend tests using the repository's configured React test and browser harnesses, including RTL, MSW, Vitest, and Playwright when present. Use when adding or reviewing component, loading/error-state, integration, or frontend E2E tests.
In this repository44 other files it gives its agents.
- coding-standardsSkill
- documentation-criteriaSkill
- frontend-technical-specSkill
- frontend-typescript-rulesSkill
- implementation-approachSkill
- integration-e2e-testingSkill
- llm-friendly-contextSkill
- project-contextSkill
- requirement-convergenceSkill
- skill-optimizationSkill
- subagents-orchestration-guideSkill
- technical-specSkill
- typescript-rulesSkill
- typescript-testingSkill
- coding-standardsSkill
- documentation-criteriaSkill
- frontend-technical-specSkill
- frontend-typescript-rulesSkill
- frontend-typescript-testingSkill
- implementation-approachSkill
- integration-e2e-testingSkill
- llm-friendly-contextSkill
- project-contextSkill
- requirement-convergenceSkill
- skill-optimizationSkill
- subagents-orchestration-guideSkill
- technical-specSkill
- typescript-rulesSkill
- typescript-testingSkill
- coding-standardsSkill
- documentation-criteriaSkill
- frontend-technical-specSkill
- frontend-typescript-rulesSkill
- frontend-typescript-testingSkill
- implementation-approachSkill
- integration-e2e-testingSkill
- llm-friendly-contextSkill
- project-contextSkill
- requirement-convergenceSkill
- skill-optimizationSkill
- subagents-orchestration-guideSkill
- technical-specSkill
- typescript-rulesSkill
- typescript-testingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈9
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 20
Vitest: Use when the repository config or existing tests select Vitest
- Distinctive: line 41
Verify behavior of individual components or functions
- Distinctive: line 46
Verify coordination between multiple components
- Distinctive: line 48
No actual DB connections (backend manages DB)
- Distinctive: line 49
Verify flows that implement a primary acceptance criterion or coordinate multiple rendered components
- Distinctive: line 63
Test suites: Names describing target components or features
- Distinctive: line 64
Test cases: Names describing expected behavior from user perspective
- Distinctive: line 68
Keep every committed test active.
- Distinctive: line 82
When the required UI state, accessibility name, or external contract is unknown, stop test design for that assertion and name the UI Spec, …
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
TypeScript Testing Rules (Frontend)
Prerequisite Detection
Inspect package.json, the lockfile, test configuration, and existing test imports before selecting a framework or command. Apply Vitest, React Testing Library, MSW, or Playwright rules only when the dependency/configuration is present. Use the repository's configured equivalent when different. If no runnable harness can be identified, report the inspected paths and the missing framework or command instead of inventing one.
References
| Test Type | Reference | When to Use |
| Unit / Integration | This document | Implementing React component tests with RTL + Vitest + MSW |
| E2E | references/e2e.md | Implementing browser-level E2E tests with Playwright |
Test Framework
- Vitest: Use when the repository config or existing tests select Vitest
- React Testing Library: For component testing
- MSW (Mock Service Worker): For API mocking
- Test imports:
import { describe, it, expect, beforeEach, vi } from 'vitest' - Component test imports:
import { render, screen } from '@testing-library/react' - User interaction:
import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event' - Mock creation: Use
vi.mock()
Basic Testing Policy
Quality Requirements
- Regression protection: assert the named acceptance result, public branch, or failure state on critical paths and high-reuse components
- Independence: Each test can run independently without depending on other tests
- Reproducibility: Control time, randomness, environment values, network responses, and browser state so identical inputs produce the same observable result
- Readability: Each test names one user-visible behavior, separates setup/action/assertion, and keeps fixtures limited to values used by that behavior
Where to concentrate test rigor
For shared components, custom hooks, and utilities reused across features, cover their public branches, error states, and boundary contracts because their regression blast radius is wider. Verify page-level composition through integration/E2E tests when the behavior depends on multiple rendered units.
Test Types and Scope
- Unit Tests (React Testing Library)
- Verify behavior of individual components or functions
- Mock all external dependencies
- Focus on user-observable behavior
- Integration Tests (React Testing Library + MSW)
- Verify coordination between multiple components
- Mock APIs with MSW (Mock Service Worker)
- No actual DB connections (backend manages DB)
- Verify flows that implement a primary acceptance criterion or coordinate multiple rendered components
- Cross-functional Verification
- When a new feature reaches a shared integration point, continuity of the existing feature becomes a proof obligation if its failure would break a primary user journey or contract, or degrade a secondary observable behavior. Prove it at the cheapest boundary that can expose its failure
- Verification pattern: Existing feature operation -> Enable new feature -> Verify continuity of existing features
- Success criteria: Preserve the displayed content and interaction behavior named by the source acceptance criteria; apply a rendering-time threshold only when project configuration or a requirement defines its value and measurement method
- Designed for automatic execution in CI/CD pipelines
Test Implementation Conventions
Directory Structure and Naming
- Co-locate a component's test in the component's own directory, so implementation and test move together
- Test files:
{ComponentName}.test.tsx - Integration test files:
{FeatureName}.integration.test.tsx - Test suites: Names describing target components or features
- Test cases: Names describing expected behavior from user perspective
Test Code Quality Rules
Keep every committed test active. Repair a test that protects current behavior. Remove a test when its behavior is no longer required and the source requirement or implementation contract confirms the removal, or when another retained test fails for every regression the removed test detects.
Mock Type Safety Enforcement
Constrain an MSW handler's response body with satisfies against the domain type it stands for, so a fixture that drifts from the contract fails at compile time rather than producing a passing test against a shape the app never receives.
Type a component or dependency mock to the surface the subject under test actually consumes — Pick<Props, 'usedProp'>, Pick<Router, 'push'> — rather than the full interface, and constrain the literal with satisfies so an extra or misnamed member fails at compile time.
Test Design Patterns
Test user-visible results, not implementation details. Query by the role and accessible name the user perceives (getByRole/getByLabelText/getByText), not getByTestId or container.querySelector. Drive interactions through userEvent with userEvent.setup() per test rather than firing raw events, so the test reproduces the browser's event sequence. await every interaction and async assertion — an unawaited interaction asserts against the pre-update render, so use findBy* for async UI.
Cover the empty, error, and loading/async states that the component renders or the accepted behavior defines, not only the happy path. Produce an error state by overriding the MSW handler for that single test rather than changing the shared handler set.
When the required UI state, accessibility name, or external contract is unknown, stop test design for that assertion and name the UI Spec, acceptance criterion, implementation contract, or user decision needed. Continue with independent assertions whose expected behavior is observed.
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
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.

