1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
|
# Page objects in GitLab QA
In GitLab QA we are using a known pattern, called _Page Objects_.
This means that we have built an abstraction for all GitLab pages that we use
to drive GitLab QA scenarios. Whenever we do something on a page, like filling
in a form, or clicking a button, we do that only through a page object
associated with this area of GitLab.
For example, when GitLab QA test harness signs in into GitLab, it needs to fill
in a user login and user password. In order to do that, we have a class, called
`Page::Main::Login` and `sign_in_using_credentials` methods, that is the only
piece of the code, that has knowledge about `user_login` and `user_password`
fields.
## Why do we need that?
We need page objects, because we need to reduce duplication and avoid problems
whenever someone changes some selectors in GitLab's source code.
Imagine that we have a hundred specs in GitLab QA, and we need to sign into
GitLab each time, before we make assertions. Without a page object one would
need to rely on volatile helpers or invoke Capybara methods directly. Imagine
invoking `fill_in :user_login` in every `*_spec.rb` file / test example.
When someone later changes `t.text_field :login` in the view associated with
this page to `t.text_field :username` it will generate a different field
identifier, what would effectively break all tests.
Because we are using `Page::Main::Login.act { sign_in_using_credentials }`
everywhere, when we want to sign into GitLab, the page object is the single
source of truth, and we will need to update `fill_in :user_login`
to `fill_in :user_username` only in a one place.
## What problems did we have in the past?
We do not run QA tests for every commit, because of performance reasons, and
the time it would take to build packages and test everything.
That is why when someone changes `t.text_field :login` to
`t.text_field :username` in the _new session_ view we won't know about this
change until our GitLab QA nightly pipeline fails, or until someone triggers
`package-and-qa` action in their merge request.
Obviously such a change would break all tests. We call this problem a _fragile
tests problem_.
In order to make GitLab QA more reliable and robust, we had to solve this
problem by introducing coupling between GitLab CE / EE views and GitLab QA.
## How did we solve fragile tests problem?
Currently, when you add a new `Page::Base` derived class, you will also need to
define all selectors that your page objects depends on.
Whenever you push your code to CE / EE repository, `qa:selectors` sanity test
job is going to be run as a part of a CI pipeline.
This test is going to validate all page objects that we have implemented in
`qa/page` directory. When it fails, you will be notified about missing
or invalid views / selectors definition.
## How to properly implement a page object?
We have built a DSL to define coupling between a page object and GitLab views
it is actually implemented by. See an example below.
```ruby
module Page
module Main
class Login < Page::Base
view 'app/views/devise/passwords/edit.html.haml' do
element :password_field
element :password_confirmation
element :change_password_button
end
view 'app/views/devise/sessions/_new_base.html.haml' do
element :login_field
element :password_field
element :sign_in_button
end
# ...
end
end
```
The `view` DSL method declares the filename of the view where an
`element` is implemented.
The `element` DSL method in turn declares an element for which a corresponding
`qa-element-name-dasherized` CSS class need to be added to the view file.
You can also define a value (String or Regexp) to match to the actual view
code but **this is deprecated** in favor of the above method for two reasons:
- Consistency: there is only one way to define an element
- Separation of concerns: QA uses dedicated CSS classes instead of reusing code
or classes used by other components (e.g. `js-*` classes etc.)
```ruby
view 'app/views/my/view.html.haml' do
# Implicitly require `.qa-logout-button` CSS class to be present in the view
element :logout_button
## This is deprecated and forbidden by the `QA/ElementWithPattern` RuboCop cop.
# Require `f.submit "Sign in"` to be present in `my/view.html.haml
element :my_button, 'f.submit "Sign in"' # rubocop:disable QA/ElementWithPattern
## This is deprecated and forbidden by the `QA/ElementWithPattern` RuboCop cop.
# Match every line in `my/view.html.haml` against
# `/link_to .* "My Profile"/` regexp.
element :profile_link, /link_to .* "My Profile"/ # rubocop:disable QA/ElementWithPattern
end
```
## Running the test locally
During development, you can run the `qa:selectors` test by running
```shell
bin/qa Test::Sanity::Selectors
```
from within the `qa` directory.
## Where to ask for help?
If you need more information, ask for help on `#quality` channel on Slack
(internal, GitLab Team only).
If you are not a Team Member, and you still need help to contribute, please
open an issue in GitLab CE issue tracker with the `~QA` label.
|
