@oneuptime/common 12.0.25 → 12.0.27

package/Tests/App/Dashboard/DiscoveryScanEditForm.test.tsx

@@ -0,0 +1,707 @@
+import "@testing-library/jest-dom";
+import {
+  afterEach,
+  beforeEach,
+  describe,
+  expect,
+  jest,
+  test,
+} from "@jest/globals";
+import { act, cleanup, render, waitFor } from "@testing-library/react";
+import * as React from "react";
+import { MemoryRouter } from "react-router-dom";
+
+/*
+ * The wiring half of OneUptime issue #3444.
+ *
+ * A discovery scan's settings used to be fixed at creation. A typo'd subnet, a
+ * probe on the wrong side of a firewall, a community string the devices
+ * reject, a one-time scan that should have repeated — each of them could only
+ * be fixed by deleting the scan, losing its results, and building it again.
+ * The row actions were Rename, Review Results and Delete, and none of them
+ * touched the sweep.
+ *
+ * The dialog that fixes this is configuration, not markup: an action button
+ * whose onClick opens a ModelFormModal whose formProps carry the field set.
+ * Every way of getting it wrong is silent — a field dropped from the array
+ * simply cannot be edited, a validator dropped from a field simply stops
+ * being enforced, `formType` left at Create posts a new scan instead of
+ * saving this one — so the modal is mocked to capture those props and they
+ * are asserted directly. Same approach as
+ * DiscoveryScanWizardValidation.test.tsx, which does this for the create
+ * wizard on the same page.
+ */
+
+type CapturedFormField = {
+  field: Record<string, boolean>;
+  title?: string | undefined;
+  stepId?: string | undefined;
+  sectionTitle?: string | undefined;
+  required?: boolean | undefined;
+  customValidation?:
+    | ((values: Record<string, unknown>) => string | null)
+    | undefined;
+  showIf?: ((values: Record<string, unknown>) => boolean) | undefined;
+  dropdownOptions?: Array<{ label: string; value: string }> | undefined;
+  /*
+   * The scan-method toggle's handler. Captured because hiding the credential
+   * fields is only half of turning SNMP off — the other half is clearing the
+   * values already typed into them, and that happens here.
+   */
+  onChange?:
+    | ((
+        value: boolean,
+        currentFormValues: Record<string, unknown>,
+        setNewFormValues: (values: Record<string, unknown>) => void,
+      ) => void)
+    | undefined;
+};
+
+type CapturedActionButton = {
+  title?: string | undefined;
+  icon?: unknown;
+  isVisible?: ((item: NetworkDeviceDiscoveryScan) => boolean) | undefined;
+  onClick?:
+    | ((
+        item: NetworkDeviceDiscoveryScan,
+        onCompleteAction: VoidFunction,
+      ) => Promise<void>)
+    | undefined;
+};
+
+type CapturedTableProps = {
+  formFields?: Array<CapturedFormField>;
+  formSteps?: Array<{ id: string; title: string }>;
+  actionButtons?: Array<CapturedActionButton>;
+  isEditable?: boolean | undefined;
+};
+
+type CapturedModalProps = {
+  title?: string | undefined;
+  description?: string | undefined;
+  footer?: React.ReactElement | undefined;
+  submitButtonText?: string | undefined;
+  modelIdToEdit?: { toString: () => string } | undefined;
+  formProps?:
+    | {
+        formType?: unknown;
+        fields?: Array<CapturedFormField>;
+        steps?: Array<{ id: string; title: string }> | undefined;
+        id?: string | undefined;
+      }
+    | undefined;
+};
+
+let capturedTableProps: CapturedTableProps | null = null;
+let capturedModalProps: CapturedModalProps | null = null;
+
+jest.mock("../../../UI/Components/ModelTable/ModelTable", () => {
+  return {
+    __esModule: true,
+    default: (props: CapturedTableProps) => {
+      capturedTableProps = props;
+      return null;
+    },
+  };
+});
+
+jest.mock("../../../UI/Components/ModelFormModal/ModelFormModal", () => {
+  return {
+    __esModule: true,
+    default: (props: CapturedModalProps) => {
+      capturedModalProps = props;
+      return null;
+    },
+  };
+});
+
+import DiscoveryPage from "../../../../App/FeatureSet/Dashboard/src/Pages/NetworkDevice/Discovery";
+import ProbeUtil from "../../../../App/FeatureSet/Dashboard/src/Utils/Probe";
+import { FormType } from "../../../UI/Components/Forms/ModelForm";
+import Project from "../../../Models/DatabaseModels/Project";
+import Probe from "../../../Models/DatabaseModels/Probe";
+import ProjectUtil from "../../../UI/Utils/Project";
+import PermissionUtil from "../../../UI/Utils/Permission";
+import Permission from "../../../Types/Permission";
+import ScanTargetUtil from "../../../Utils/NetworkDiscovery/ScanTargetUtil";
+import SnmpScanConfigUtil from "../../../Utils/NetworkDiscovery/SnmpScanConfigUtil";
+import NetworkDeviceDiscoveryScan from "../../../Models/DatabaseModels/NetworkDeviceDiscoveryScan";
+import ObjectID from "../../../Types/ObjectID";
+import Route from "../../../Types/API/Route";
+
+const PROJECT_ID: ObjectID = new ObjectID(
+  "11111111-1111-4111-8111-111111111111",
+);
+const PROBE_ID: ObjectID = new ObjectID("22222222-2222-4222-8222-222222222222");
+const SCAN_ID: ObjectID = new ObjectID("33333333-3333-4333-8333-333333333333");
+
+function editFields(): Array<CapturedFormField> {
+  return capturedModalProps?.formProps?.fields || [];
+}
+
+function fieldKeyOf(field: CapturedFormField): string {
+  return Object.keys(field.field || {})[0] as string;
+}
+
+function editFieldKeys(): Array<string> {
+  return editFields().map(fieldKeyOf);
+}
+
+function editFieldNamed(key: string): CapturedFormField {
+  const field: CapturedFormField | undefined = editFields().find(
+    (candidate: CapturedFormField): boolean => {
+      return fieldKeyOf(candidate) === key;
+    },
+  );
+
+  if (!field) {
+    throw new Error(`Edit dialog field "${key}" not found`);
+  }
+
+  return field;
+}
+
+function editAction(): CapturedActionButton {
+  const action: CapturedActionButton | undefined = (
+    capturedTableProps?.actionButtons || []
+  ).find((button: CapturedActionButton): boolean => {
+    return button.title === "Edit";
+  });
+
+  if (!action) {
+    throw new Error("The scans table has no Edit action");
+  }
+
+  return action;
+}
+
+function storedScan(): NetworkDeviceDiscoveryScan {
+  const scan: NetworkDeviceDiscoveryScan = new NetworkDeviceDiscoveryScan();
+
+  scan.id = SCAN_ID;
+  scan.cidr = "192.168.1.0/24";
+  scan.status = "Completed";
+
+  return scan;
+}
+
+async function renderPage(): Promise<void> {
+  const project: Project = new Project();
+  project.id = PROJECT_ID;
+
+  render(
+    <MemoryRouter>
+      <DiscoveryPage
+        pageRoute={new Route("/dashboard/network-devices/discovery")}
+        currentProject={project}
+        hasPaymentMethod={true}
+      />
+    </MemoryRouter>,
+  );
+
+  // The page renders a loader until its probe fetch settles.
+  await waitFor(() => {
+    expect(capturedTableProps).not.toBeNull();
+  });
+}
+
+// Open the dialog the way the operator does: press the row's Edit button.
+async function openEditDialog(): Promise<void> {
+  await renderPage();
+
+  const onClick: CapturedActionButton["onClick"] = editAction().onClick;
+
+  if (!onClick) {
+    throw new Error("The Edit action does nothing when clicked");
+  }
+
+  await act(async () => {
+    await onClick(storedScan(), () => {});
+  });
+
+  await waitFor(() => {
+    expect(capturedModalProps).not.toBeNull();
+  });
+}
+
+describe("Editing a discovery scan after it was created", () => {
+  beforeEach(() => {
+    capturedTableProps = null;
+    capturedModalProps = null;
+
+    jest.spyOn(ProjectUtil, "getCurrentProjectId").mockReturnValue(PROJECT_ID);
+
+    const probe: Probe = new Probe();
+    probe._id = PROBE_ID.toString();
+    probe.name = "Region 1100 probe";
+
+    jest.spyOn(ProbeUtil, "getAllProbes").mockResolvedValue([probe] as never);
+
+    jest
+      .spyOn(PermissionUtil, "getAllPermissions")
+      .mockReturnValue([Permission.ProjectAdmin]);
+  });
+
+  afterEach(() => {
+    cleanup();
+    jest.restoreAllMocks();
+    capturedTableProps = null;
+    capturedModalProps = null;
+  });
+
+  test("nothing opens until the operator asks for it", async () => {
+    await renderPage();
+
+    expect(capturedModalProps).toBeNull();
+  });
+
+  test("the dialog edits the scan that was clicked, rather than creating one", async () => {
+    await openEditDialog();
+
+    expect(capturedModalProps?.formProps?.formType).toBe(FormType.Update);
+    expect(capturedModalProps?.modelIdToEdit?.toString()).toBe(
+      SCAN_ID.toString(),
+    );
+    expect(capturedModalProps?.submitButtonText).toBe("Save Changes");
+  });
+
+  /*
+   * The issue's actual complaint, field by field: the target, the probe, the
+   * credentials and the schedule. Asserted as a set rather than a count, so a
+   * new field on the create wizard that is not offered for editing is a
+   * failure here rather than a discovery months later.
+   *
+   * The credentials are ONE key now, not nine. The SNMP step used to spread
+   * getSnmpConfigFormFields — snmpVersion, snmpCommunityString, snmpPort and
+   * the six v3 fields, flat — which allowed exactly one credential set per
+   * scan. A scan now carries an ORDERED LIST of them and tries each in turn
+   * (OneUptime issue #3458), and a repeated block cannot be expressed as
+   * Fields, so the nine are replaced by a single CustomComponent field bound
+   * to the `snmpConfigs` column. The list still has to be editable after
+   * creation — a rejected community string is exactly the kind of thing this
+   * dialog exists to correct — so it is named here like every other setting.
+   *
+   * `isSnmpEnabled` is named here for the same reason and a sharper one
+   * (OneUptime issue #3445): it is the scan's METHOD, and a scan created as
+   * ICMP-only with no way to turn SNMP back on is the delete-and-recreate loop
+   * this dialog was built to end, one field further along. Asserted as an
+   * exact list rather than a set of `toContain` calls, so a tenth flat field
+   * creeping back onto the wizard fails here too.
+   */
+  test("offers every setting the create wizard collects", async () => {
+    await openEditDialog();
+
+    const wizardKeys: Array<string> = (
+      capturedTableProps?.formFields || []
+    ).map(fieldKeyOf);
+
+    expect(editFieldKeys()).toEqual(wizardKeys);
+
+    expect(editFieldKeys()).toEqual([
+      "name",
+      "cidr",
+      "probe",
+      "isSnmpEnabled",
+      "snmpConfigs",
+      "isRecurring",
+      "rescanIntervalInMinutes",
+    ]);
+  });
+
+  /*
+   * Where the two changes meet, and the case neither of them can state alone.
+   *
+   * An ICMP-only scan (issue #3445) stores no credentials, and the credential
+   * list (issue #3458) is `required: true` with a validator of its own. Those
+   * two facts collide in exactly one place: a scan whose method is off must
+   * not be judged by the credential rules, or the Edit dialog refuses to save
+   * a ping sweep because it is missing credentials it will never send.
+   *
+   * Validation.validate skips a field whose `showIf` says it is hidden, so
+   * that gate is the whole mechanism — and it is asserted here against the
+   * EDIT dialog specifically. The wizard has a second line of defence in the
+   * step-level showIf on the SNMP step, which filters the step out entirely;
+   * the edit dialog has no steps at all, so the field-level `showIf` is the
+   * only thing standing between an ICMP-only scan and an unsavable form.
+   */
+  test("stops asking for credentials once the scan is ICMP-only", async () => {
+    await openEditDialog();
+
+    const snmpConfigs: CapturedFormField = editFieldNamed("snmpConfigs");
+
+    expect(snmpConfigs.required).toBe(true);
+    expect(snmpConfigs.showIf).toBeDefined();
+
+    // The method is on: the list is shown, and its rules apply.
+    expect(snmpConfigs.showIf?.({ isSnmpEnabled: true })).toBe(true);
+
+    // Turned off: hidden, so neither `required` nor the validator can speak.
+    expect(snmpConfigs.showIf?.({ isSnmpEnabled: false })).toBe(false);
+
+    /*
+     * And ABSENT means shown. A scan row written before the column existed,
+     * or one whose `select` did not ask for it, arrives here as undefined —
+     * and every one of those scans is an SNMP scan, so hiding the editor for
+     * them would blank a credential list the scan is really carrying. This is
+     * ScanModeUtil's `!== false` read, reaching the form through
+     * isIcmpOnlyScan.
+     */
+    expect(snmpConfigs.showIf?.({})).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  /*
+   * The same interaction from the other end: turning the method off has to
+   * take the credentials with it.
+   *
+   * Hiding the editor is not enough on its own. ModelForm builds the request
+   * body from every DECLARED field without asking whether it was visible, so a
+   * list of v3 passphrases typed before the operator changed their mind would
+   * be posted — and stored — on a scan that will never send one. The toggle's
+   * own onChange is what clears it, and this is the edit dialog's copy of that
+   * toggle, so the guarantee is pinned on the form the operator uses to make
+   * exactly this change to an EXISTING scan.
+   */
+  test("clears the credential list when the method is turned off", async () => {
+    await openEditDialog();
+
+    const isSnmpEnabled: CapturedFormField = editFieldNamed("isSnmpEnabled");
+
+    expect(isSnmpEnabled.onChange).toBeDefined();
+
+    const before: Record<string, unknown> = {
+      cidr: "192.168.1.0/24",
+      isSnmpEnabled: true,
+      snmpConfigs: [
+        { id: "config-1", snmpVersion: "V2c", snmpCommunityString: "public" },
+      ],
+      snmpCommunityString: "public",
+      snmpV3AuthKey: "auth-key",
+      snmpV3PrivKey: "priv-key",
+    };
+
+    let after: Record<string, unknown> | null = null;
+
+    isSnmpEnabled.onChange?.(
+      false,
+      before,
+      (values: Record<string, unknown>) => {
+        after = values;
+      },
+    );
+
+    const cleared: Record<string, unknown> = after as unknown as Record<
+      string,
+      unknown
+    >;
+
+    expect(cleared).not.toBeNull();
+    expect(cleared["isSnmpEnabled"]).toBe(false);
+    expect(cleared["snmpConfigs"]).toBeUndefined();
+    /*
+     * The flattened columns go too. This form no longer collects them — the
+     * server mirrors them from the list's first entry — but a value that
+     * reached the form some other way must not ride along on a scan that will
+     * never send SNMP.
+     */
+    expect(cleared["snmpCommunityString"]).toBeUndefined();
+    expect(cleared["snmpV3AuthKey"]).toBeUndefined();
+    expect(cleared["snmpV3PrivKey"]).toBeUndefined();
+    /*
+     * With ONE exception: the version is RESET to its default rather than
+     * cleared. Clearing it leaves a required Dropdown holding nothing, which
+     * then fails with "SNMP Version is required" against a control that
+     * visibly reads V2c the moment the operator turns SNMP back on — issue
+     * #3445's own symptom, reintroduced on the way out of it.
+     */
+    expect(cleared["snmpVersion"]).toBeDefined();
+    // ...and the rest of the scan is untouched.
+    expect(cleared["cidr"]).toBe("192.168.1.0/24");
+
+    /*
+     * Turning it back ON changes nothing by itself: the editor seeds its own
+     * first card, and a handler that rewrote values here would fight it.
+     */
+    let touchedOnEnable: boolean = false;
+
+    isSnmpEnabled.onChange?.(true, before, () => {
+      touchedOnEnable = true;
+    });
+
+    expect(touchedOnEnable).toBe(false);
+  });
+
+  /*
+   * The other half of that change, stated as its own guarantee: the flattened
+   * columns are no longer collected ANYWHERE on this dialog.
+   *
+   * They still exist on the model — the server mirrors the first config onto
+   * them so that a probe a version behind keeps working — but they are derived
+   * now, not typed. Offering one of them here would give the operator a box
+   * whose value the next save silently overwrites from the list, which is
+   * worse than not offering it at all.
+   */
+  test("no longer offers the flattened SNMP columns the list replaced", async () => {
+    await openEditDialog();
+
+    for (const key of [
+      "snmpVersion",
+      "snmpCommunityString",
+      "snmpPort",
+      "snmpV3SecurityLevel",
+      "snmpV3Username",
+      "snmpV3AuthProtocol",
+      "snmpV3AuthKey",
+      "snmpV3PrivProtocol",
+      "snmpV3PrivKey",
+    ]) {
+      expect(editFieldKeys()).not.toContain(key);
+    }
+  });
+
+  /*
+   * "Repeat this scan" is the setting named in the issue title, and the one
+   * whose absence sent people to delete-and-recreate.
+   */
+  test("offers recurrence, which is what the report was about", async () => {
+    await openEditDialog();
+
+    const isRecurring: CapturedFormField = editFieldNamed("isRecurring");
+    const interval: CapturedFormField = editFieldNamed(
+      "rescanIntervalInMinutes",
+    );
+
+    expect(isRecurring.title).toBe("Repeat this scan");
+    // The interval reveals itself off the toggle, exactly as in the wizard.
+    expect(interval.showIf?.({ isRecurring: true })).toBe(true);
+    expect(interval.showIf?.({ isRecurring: false })).toBe(false);
+  });
+
+  /*
+   * One definition, two layouts. A second copy of the field array would be a
+   * second set of descriptions, validators and reveal rules to keep in step,
+   * and the copy that drifted would be this one — the one nobody exercises
+   * until they are already trying to fix a scan that is not working.
+   *
+   * Compared field by field rather than by object identity: the factory builds
+   * fresh objects for each form, deliberately, because ModelForm mutates the
+   * field objects it is handed (it writes an inferred maxLength onto them) and
+   * two forms must not share one mutable object.
+   */
+  test("describes every field exactly as the create wizard does", async () => {
+    await openEditDialog();
+
+    const wizardFields: Array<CapturedFormField> =
+      capturedTableProps?.formFields || [];
+    const formSteps: Array<{ id: string; title: string }> =
+      capturedTableProps?.formSteps || [];
+
+    expect(editFields()).toHaveLength(wizardFields.length);
+
+    let headed: number = 0;
+    const titledStepIds: Set<string> = new Set<string>();
+
+    editFields().forEach((field: CapturedFormField, index: number) => {
+      const wizardField: CapturedFormField = wizardFields[
+        index
+      ] as CapturedFormField;
+
+      expect({
+        key: fieldKeyOf(field),
+        title: field.title,
+        stepId: field.stepId,
+        required: field.required,
+        // Module-level functions, so identity is the right comparison here.
+        customValidation: field.customValidation,
+        hasShowIf: Boolean(field.showIf),
+      }).toEqual({
+        key: fieldKeyOf(wizardField),
+        title: wizardField.title,
+        stepId: wizardField.stepId,
+        required: wizardField.required,
+        customValidation: wizardField.customValidation,
+        hasShowIf: Boolean(wizardField.showIf),
+      });
+
+      let expectedSectionTitle: string | undefined = wizardField.sectionTitle;
+
+      /*
+       * The edit layout adds each wizard step's title to the first field in
+       * that step. Field-level subsection titles are part of the shared field
+       * definition, though, and must survive unchanged in both layouts. The
+       * scan-method toggle's "What to check" heading is one such subsection.
+       */
+      if (wizardField.stepId && !titledStepIds.has(wizardField.stepId)) {
+        expectedSectionTitle = formSteps.find(
+          (step: { id: string; title: string }): boolean => {
+            return step.id === wizardField.stepId;
+          },
+        )?.title;
+
+        expect(expectedSectionTitle).toBeDefined();
+        titledStepIds.add(wizardField.stepId);
+        headed++;
+      }
+
+      expect(field.sectionTitle).toBe(expectedSectionTitle);
+    });
+
+    expect(headed).toBe(formSteps.length);
+    expect(
+      wizardFields.find((field: CapturedFormField): boolean => {
+        return fieldKeyOf(field) === "isSnmpEnabled";
+      })?.sectionTitle,
+    ).toBe("What to check");
+
+    // And the validators are really wired, not merely identical undefineds.
+    expect(
+      editFieldNamed("cidr").customValidation?.({ cidr: "10.0.0.0/33" }),
+    ).toBe(ScanTargetUtil.getValidationError("10.0.0.0/33"));
+    expect(
+      editFieldNamed("rescanIntervalInMinutes").customValidation,
+    ).toBeDefined();
+    expect(editFieldNamed("name").customValidation).toBeDefined();
+
+    /*
+     * The credential list included. Its validator is `validateSnmpConfigs`, a
+     * MODULE-LEVEL const in DiscoveryScanFormValidation rather than an arrow
+     * written inline in the field factory — which is what makes the identity
+     * comparison above meaningful for it. An inline closure would be a fresh
+     * function object on each of the two calls the page makes to the factory,
+     * so this test would fail even though both forms enforced the same rule;
+     * the const is the fix, and this assertion is what would notice it being
+     * inlined again.
+     */
+    expect(
+      editFieldNamed("snmpConfigs").customValidation?.({ snmpConfigs: [] }),
+    ).toBe(SnmpScanConfigUtil.getValidationError([]));
+  });
+
+  test("offers the probes that were fetched for the create wizard", async () => {
+    await openEditDialog();
+
+    expect(editFieldNamed("probe").dropdownOptions).toEqual([
+      { label: "Region 1100 probe", value: PROBE_ID.toString() },
+    ]);
+  });
+
+  /*
+   * Not a wizard. A stepped form has no Back button — the only way backwards
+   * is the step rail, which BasicForm hides below the `lg` breakpoint — and
+   * three "Next" clicks to reach the toggle you came to flip is the wrong
+   * shape for a repair. The wizard's step titles survive as section headings
+   * so the grouping is not lost with the steps.
+   */
+  test("lays the settings out on one page, under the wizard's own headings", async () => {
+    await openEditDialog();
+
+    expect(capturedModalProps?.formProps?.steps).toBeUndefined();
+
+    const headings: Array<string> = editFields()
+      .map((field: CapturedFormField): string | undefined => {
+        return field.sectionTitle;
+      })
+      .filter((title: string | undefined): boolean => {
+        return Boolean(title);
+      }) as Array<string>;
+
+    /*
+     * NOT simply the step titles in order any more, which is what this
+     * assertion used to be. The scan-method toggle carries a subsection
+     * heading of its own ("What to check") in the middle of the Scan Target
+     * group, so the edit dialog's headings are the step titles INTERLEAVED
+     * with the field-level ones — and an assertion that only knew about steps
+     * would have to be relaxed to accommodate that, which would stop it
+     * noticing a step heading going missing.
+     *
+     * Rebuilt from the wizard's own fields instead: first field of a step
+     * contributes that step's title (the edit layout overwrites its
+     * sectionTitle with it), every other field contributes whatever
+     * sectionTitle it declares. That keeps the assertion exact while staying
+     * true for both kinds of heading.
+     */
+    const wizardFields: Array<CapturedFormField> =
+      capturedTableProps?.formFields || [];
+    const formSteps: Array<{ id: string; title: string }> =
+      capturedTableProps?.formSteps || [];
+    const titledStepIds: Set<string> = new Set<string>();
+    const expectedHeadings: Array<string> = [];
+
+    wizardFields.forEach((field: CapturedFormField): void => {
+      if (field.stepId && !titledStepIds.has(field.stepId)) {
+        const stepTitle: string | undefined = formSteps.find(
+          (step: { id: string; title: string }): boolean => {
+            return step.id === field.stepId;
+          },
+        )?.title;
+
+        expect(stepTitle).toBeDefined();
+        expectedHeadings.push(stepTitle as string);
+        titledStepIds.add(field.stepId);
+        return;
+      }
+
+      if (field.sectionTitle) {
+        expectedHeadings.push(field.sectionTitle);
+      }
+    });
+
+    expect(headings).toEqual(expectedHeadings);
+    expect(headings).toContain("What to check");
+
+    /*
+     * A heading is carried by the FIRST field of its group, so which field
+     * carries it is not decoration — it is where the group begins. The SNMP
+     * group used to begin at `snmpVersion`, the first of nine flat fields;
+     * it now begins at `snmpConfigs`, which is the only field on that step.
+     * Pinned because the heading silently moves to whatever field happens to
+     * come first, and a group that begins in the wrong place puts the
+     * credentials under the schedule's heading with no other symptom.
+     */
+    expect(editFieldNamed("snmpConfigs").sectionTitle).toBe("SNMP Credentials");
+
+    /*
+     * And the toggle keeps its own heading rather than being promoted to a
+     * group start. It sits in the MIDDLE of the Scan Target step, so if the
+     * edit layout ever headed every field instead of the first of each step,
+     * "What to check" would be replaced by a second "Scan Target" and the two
+     * questions the step asks would read as one.
+     */
+    expect(editFieldNamed("isSnmpEnabled").sectionTitle).toBe("What to check");
+  });
+
+  /*
+   * Changing the sweep clears the last run's hosts, and that is not something
+   * to find out afterwards in an empty Review Results dialog.
+   */
+  test("says what changing the sweep will cost before it is saved", async () => {
+    await openEditDialog();
+
+    const footerElement: React.ReactElement | undefined =
+      capturedModalProps?.footer;
+
+    expect(footerElement).toBeDefined();
+
+    /*
+     * Rendered rather than inspected: what matters is the sentence the
+     * operator reads, not which component carries it.
+     */
+    const { container } = render(<MemoryRouter>{footerElement}</MemoryRouter>);
+    const warning: string = container.textContent || "";
+
+    expect(warning).toContain("re-runs the scan");
+    expect(warning).toContain("cleared");
+    // ...and that a rename or a schedule change costs nothing.
+    expect(warning).toContain("name or the schedule");
+  });
+
+  /*
+   * The table itself must stay non-editable, or the operator gets two Edit
+   * buttons: this one, and ModelTable's own — which has no room for the
+   * warning above and no per-row visibility hook.
+   */
+  test("does not also turn on the table's built-in edit button", async () => {
+    await renderPage();
+
+    expect(capturedTableProps?.isEditable).toBe(false);
+  });
+});