@oneuptime/common 12.0.33 → 12.0.34

package/Tests/Utils/Uptime/DayUptimeGraphUtil.test.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,461 @@
+import DayUptimeGraphUtil from "../../../Utils/Uptime/DayUptimeGraphUtil";
+import UptimeHistoryLabels, {
+  DefaultUptimeHistoryLabels,
+} from "../../../Types/Monitor/UptimeHistoryLabels";
+import { describe, expect, test } from "@jest/globals";
+
+/*
+ * Contract under test - the day-by-day uptime strip has to be operable
+ * without a mouse and describable to a screen reader.
+ *
+ * The strip is ninety bars per resource. Two consequences drive everything
+ * here: it can only be one tab stop (so movement inside it is arrow keys over
+ * a roving tabindex, which is the maths below), and every bar needs a name a
+ * screen reader can read out (which is the wording below). Both are pure so
+ * they can be pinned down exactly rather than inferred from a rendered DOM.
+ */
+
+const SPANISH_LABELS: UptimeHistoryLabels = {
+  ...DefaultUptimeHistoryLabels,
+  graphLabel: "Historial de {{total}} dias",
+  dayLabel: "{{date}}: {{uptime}} por ciento",
+  dayLabelWithIncidents: "{{date}}: {{uptime}} por ciento, {{total}} sucesos",
+  dayLabelNoData: "{{date}}: sin datos",
+  dayLabelNoDataWithIncidents: "{{date}}: sin datos, {{total}} sucesos",
+};
+
+describe("DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex", () => {
+  test("ArrowRight and ArrowDown both move forward one day", () => {
+    for (const key of ["ArrowRight", "ArrowDown"]) {
+      expect(
+        DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+          key: key,
+          currentIndex: 10,
+          barCount: 90,
+        }),
+      ).toBe(11);
+    }
+  });
+
+  test("ArrowLeft and ArrowUp both move back one day", () => {
+    for (const key of ["ArrowLeft", "ArrowUp"]) {
+      expect(
+        DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+          key: key,
+          currentIndex: 10,
+          barCount: 90,
+        }),
+      ).toBe(9);
+    }
+  });
+
+  test("Home goes to the oldest day and End to today", () => {
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+        key: "Home",
+        currentIndex: 45,
+        barCount: 90,
+      }),
+    ).toBe(0);
+
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+        key: "End",
+        currentIndex: 45,
+        barCount: 90,
+      }),
+    ).toBe(89);
+  });
+
+  test("PageDown and PageUp move a week at a time", () => {
+    expect(DayUptimeGraphUtil.PageJumpInDays).toBe(7);
+
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+        key: "PageDown",
+        currentIndex: 40,
+        barCount: 90,
+      }),
+    ).toBe(47);
+
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+        key: "PageUp",
+        currentIndex: 40,
+        barCount: 90,
+      }),
+    ).toBe(33);
+  });
+
+  /*
+   * Wrapping a ninety day history would jump from today to three months ago
+   * on one key press, which reads as a glitch rather than as navigation.
+   */
+  test("movement clamps at both ends rather than wrapping", () => {
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+        key: "ArrowLeft",
+        currentIndex: 0,
+        barCount: 90,
+      }),
+    ).toBe(0);
+
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+        key: "ArrowRight",
+        currentIndex: 89,
+        barCount: 90,
+      }),
+    ).toBe(89);
+
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+        key: "PageUp",
+        currentIndex: 3,
+        barCount: 90,
+      }),
+    ).toBe(0);
+
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+        key: "PageDown",
+        currentIndex: 87,
+        barCount: 90,
+      }),
+    ).toBe(89);
+  });
+
+  /*
+   * The widget must not swallow the keys the browser owns. Returning null is
+   * what tells the component to leave the event alone, so Tab still leaves
+   * the strip and Enter and Space still activate the focused bar.
+   */
+  test("keys the strip does not own are handed back", () => {
+    for (const key of [
+      "Tab",
+      "Enter",
+      " ",
+      "Escape",
+      "a",
+      "ArrowRightArrow",
+      "",
+    ]) {
+      expect(
+        DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+          key: key,
+          currentIndex: 10,
+          barCount: 90,
+        }),
+      ).toBeNull();
+    }
+  });
+
+  test("an empty strip has nowhere to move", () => {
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+        key: "ArrowRight",
+        currentIndex: 0,
+        barCount: 0,
+      }),
+    ).toBeNull();
+
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+        key: "Home",
+        currentIndex: 0,
+        barCount: -3,
+      }),
+    ).toBeNull();
+  });
+
+  /*
+   * The window can shrink under a stored index - a status page whose owner
+   * lowers showUptimeHistoryInDays from 90 to 30 between renders. Movement
+   * must still land somewhere real.
+   */
+  test("an index left over from a longer window still moves sanely", () => {
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+        key: "ArrowRight",
+        currentIndex: 500,
+        barCount: 30,
+      }),
+    ).toBe(29);
+
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+        key: "ArrowLeft",
+        currentIndex: 500,
+        barCount: 30,
+      }),
+    ).toBe(28);
+
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+        key: "ArrowLeft",
+        currentIndex: -8,
+        barCount: 30,
+      }),
+    ).toBe(0);
+  });
+
+  test("a one day strip cannot move off itself", () => {
+    for (const key of ["ArrowLeft", "ArrowRight", "Home", "End", "PageUp"]) {
+      expect(
+        DayUptimeGraphUtil.getNextFocusIndex({
+          key: key,
+          currentIndex: 0,
+          barCount: 1,
+        }),
+      ).toBe(0);
+    }
+  });
+});
+
+describe("DayUptimeGraphUtil.getActiveBarIndex", () => {
+  /*
+   * Today, not three months ago: the bar a visitor wants first is the one on
+   * the right hand end.
+   */
+  test("focus lands on today before anything has been focused", () => {
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getActiveBarIndex({
+        storedIndex: null,
+        barCount: 90,
+      }),
+    ).toBe(89);
+  });
+
+  test("a stored index is used as it stands", () => {
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getActiveBarIndex({ storedIndex: 12, barCount: 90 }),
+    ).toBe(12);
+  });
+
+  test("a stored index outside the window is pulled back into it", () => {
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getActiveBarIndex({ storedIndex: 400, barCount: 30 }),
+    ).toBe(29);
+
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getActiveBarIndex({ storedIndex: -5, barCount: 30 }),
+    ).toBe(0);
+  });
+
+  test("an empty strip reports index zero rather than minus one", () => {
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getActiveBarIndex({ storedIndex: null, barCount: 0 }),
+    ).toBe(0);
+  });
+});
+
+describe("DayUptimeGraphUtil.getBarTabIndex", () => {
+  /*
+   * The whole point of the roving tabindex: exactly one bar per strip is
+   * reachable with Tab, so twenty resources cost twenty tab stops rather than
+   * eighteen hundred.
+   */
+  test("exactly one bar in a strip is tabbable", () => {
+    const barCount: number = 90;
+    const activeIndex: number = 42;
+
+    let tabbable: number = 0;
+
+    for (let index: number = 0; index < barCount; index++) {
+      const tabIndex: number = DayUptimeGraphUtil.getBarTabIndex({
+        index: index,
+        activeIndex: activeIndex,
+      });
+
+      expect(tabIndex === 0 || tabIndex === -1).toBe(true);
+
+      if (tabIndex === 0) {
+        tabbable++;
+      }
+    }
+
+    expect(tabbable).toBe(1);
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getBarTabIndex({ index: 42, activeIndex: 42 }),
+    ).toBe(0);
+  });
+});
+
+describe("DayUptimeGraphUtil.formatUptimePercentForLabel", () => {
+  test("a whole number reads as a whole number", () => {
+    expect(DayUptimeGraphUtil.formatUptimePercentForLabel(100)).toBe("100");
+    expect(DayUptimeGraphUtil.formatUptimePercentForLabel(99)).toBe("99");
+    expect(DayUptimeGraphUtil.formatUptimePercentForLabel(0)).toBe("0");
+  });
+
+  test("trailing zeroes are dropped", () => {
+    expect(DayUptimeGraphUtil.formatUptimePercentForLabel(99.5)).toBe("99.5");
+    expect(DayUptimeGraphUtil.formatUptimePercentForLabel(99.5)).not.toBe(
+      "99.50",
+    );
+    expect(DayUptimeGraphUtil.formatUptimePercentForLabel(99.123)).toBe(
+      "99.12",
+    );
+  });
+
+  /*
+   * A day that had an outage must never be read out as "100% uptime". Saying
+   * so on a status page is a wrong statement, not a rounding.
+   */
+  test("a hair under a hundred never rounds up to a hundred", () => {
+    expect(DayUptimeGraphUtil.formatUptimePercentForLabel(99.999)).toBe(
+      "99.99",
+    );
+    expect(DayUptimeGraphUtil.formatUptimePercentForLabel(99.99999)).toBe(
+      "99.99",
+    );
+  });
+
+  test("impossible readings are clamped rather than repeated", () => {
+    expect(DayUptimeGraphUtil.formatUptimePercentForLabel(140)).toBe("100");
+    expect(DayUptimeGraphUtil.formatUptimePercentForLabel(-20)).toBe("0");
+    expect(DayUptimeGraphUtil.formatUptimePercentForLabel(NaN)).toBe("0");
+    expect(DayUptimeGraphUtil.formatUptimePercentForLabel(Infinity)).toBe("0");
+  });
+});
+
+describe("DayUptimeGraphUtil.getDayAriaLabel", () => {
+  test("a clean day names the date and the reading", () => {
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getDayAriaLabel({
+        dateLabel: "Mar 03 2026",
+        hasEvents: true,
+        uptimePercent: 100,
+        incidentCount: 0,
+      }),
+    ).toBe("Mar 03 2026: 100% uptime");
+  });
+
+  test("a day with incidents says how many", () => {
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getDayAriaLabel({
+        dateLabel: "Mar 03 2026",
+        hasEvents: true,
+        uptimePercent: 98.25,
+        incidentCount: 2,
+      }),
+    ).toBe("Mar 03 2026: 98.25% uptime, 2 incidents");
+  });
+
+  /*
+   * A day before the monitor existed is not a day of downtime, and the label
+   * must not imply it was.
+   */
+  test("a day with no timeline rows says no data, not zero percent", () => {
+    const label: string = DayUptimeGraphUtil.getDayAriaLabel({
+      dateLabel: "Jan 01 2026",
+      hasEvents: false,
+      uptimePercent: 100,
+      incidentCount: 0,
+    });
+
+    expect(label).toBe("Jan 01 2026: no data");
+    expect(label).not.toContain("%");
+  });
+
+  test("a day with no data but with incidents still reports them", () => {
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getDayAriaLabel({
+        dateLabel: "Jan 01 2026",
+        hasEvents: false,
+        uptimePercent: 0,
+        incidentCount: 3,
+      }),
+    ).toBe("Jan 01 2026: no data, 3 incidents");
+  });
+
+  test("a negative incident count is treated as none", () => {
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getDayAriaLabel({
+        dateLabel: "Mar 03 2026",
+        hasEvents: true,
+        uptimePercent: 100,
+        incidentCount: -4,
+      }),
+    ).toBe("Mar 03 2026: 100% uptime");
+  });
+
+  test("the caller's own wording is used when it passes some", () => {
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getDayAriaLabel({
+        dateLabel: "3 mar 2026",
+        hasEvents: true,
+        uptimePercent: 99.9,
+        incidentCount: 1,
+        labels: SPANISH_LABELS,
+      }),
+    ).toBe("3 mar 2026: 99.9 por ciento, 1 sucesos");
+
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getDayAriaLabel({
+        dateLabel: "3 mar 2026",
+        hasEvents: false,
+        uptimePercent: 0,
+        incidentCount: 0,
+        labels: SPANISH_LABELS,
+      }),
+    ).toBe("3 mar 2026: sin datos");
+  });
+
+  /*
+   * A half translated locale must degrade to an odd label, never to a page
+   * that fails to render.
+   */
+  test("a translation missing its placeholders still produces a label", () => {
+    const label: string = DayUptimeGraphUtil.getDayAriaLabel({
+      dateLabel: "Mar 03 2026",
+      hasEvents: true,
+      uptimePercent: 100,
+      incidentCount: 0,
+      labels: {
+        ...DefaultUptimeHistoryLabels,
+        dayLabel: "Disponibilidad del dia",
+      },
+    });
+
+    expect(label).toBe("Disponibilidad del dia");
+  });
+
+  test("a placeholder used twice is filled in both places", () => {
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getDayAriaLabel({
+        dateLabel: "Mar 03 2026",
+        hasEvents: true,
+        uptimePercent: 50,
+        incidentCount: 0,
+        labels: {
+          ...DefaultUptimeHistoryLabels,
+          dayLabel: "{{date}} - {{date}}",
+        },
+      }),
+    ).toBe("Mar 03 2026 - Mar 03 2026");
+  });
+});
+
+describe("DayUptimeGraphUtil.getGraphAriaLabel", () => {
+  test("the strip names the window it covers", () => {
+    expect(DayUptimeGraphUtil.getGraphAriaLabel({ dayCount: 90 })).toBe(
+      "Uptime history for the last 90 days",
+    );
+  });
+
+  test("the caller's own wording is used when it passes some", () => {
+    expect(
+      DayUptimeGraphUtil.getGraphAriaLabel({
+        dayCount: 30,
+        labels: SPANISH_LABELS,
+      }),
+    ).toBe("Historial de 30 dias");
+  });
+
+  test("a strip with nothing in it does not claim a negative window", () => {
+    expect(DayUptimeGraphUtil.getGraphAriaLabel({ dayCount: -5 })).toBe(
+      "Uptime history for the last 0 days",
+    );
+  });
+});

package/Tests/Utils/ValueFormatter.test.ts

@@ -215,6 +215,154 @@ describe("ValueFormatter", () => {
       expect(ValueFormatter.isFractionMetric(undefined)).toBe(false);
       expect(ValueFormatter.isFractionMetric("")).toBe(false);
     });
+
+    /*
+     * The two kubeletstats cores gauges are misnamed. `.utilization` is a
+     * lie the OTel receiver tells: the value is CPU *cores in use*
+     * (UsageNanoCores / 1e9) with unit "1", not a [0, 1] ratio. Before
+     * this exclusion an 0.1831-core pod rendered as "18.31%" with a
+     * "Percent" axis, on the very page that also showed it at 91.55% of
+     * its CPU limit. Reverting the guard flips every assertion below.
+     */
+    test("the two kubeletstats cores gauges are NOT fractions", () => {
+      expect(ValueFormatter.isFractionMetric("k8s.pod.cpu.utilization")).toBe(
+        false,
+      );
+      expect(ValueFormatter.isFractionMetric("k8s.node.cpu.utilization")).toBe(
+        false,
+      );
+    });
+
+    test("the exclusion is anchored, not a prefix or substring match", () => {
+      /*
+       * Kept deliberately narrow so a future widening has to be a
+       * conscious edit. These four still multiply by 100.
+       */
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.isFractionMetric("k8s.pod.memory.utilization"),
+      ).toBe(true);
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.isFractionMetric("k8s.pod.cpu_limit_utilization"),
+      ).toBe(true);
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.isFractionMetric(
+          "k8s.container.cpu_request_utilization",
+        ),
+      ).toBe(true);
+      // Emitted by BOTH kubeletstats and docker_stats; scale is contested.
+      expect(ValueFormatter.isFractionMetric("container.cpu.utilization")).toBe(
+        true,
+      );
+      // Not anchored at the start: a decorated name is still a ratio.
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.isFractionMetric("prefix.k8s.pod.cpu.utilization"),
+      ).toBe(true);
+    });
+
+    test("the exclusion ignores surrounding whitespace and case", () => {
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.isFractionMetric("  k8s.pod.cpu.utilization  "),
+      ).toBe(false);
+      expect(ValueFormatter.isFractionMetric("K8S.Node.CPU.Utilization")).toBe(
+        false,
+      );
+    });
+  });
+
+  describe("kubeletstats cores gauges render as cores, never as a percent", () => {
+    /*
+     * These pin the user-visible half of the same defect. Each case is
+     * paired with the genuine OTel ratio metric so the two behaviours are
+     * visibly contrasted: system.cpu.utilization really is a [0, 1]
+     * fraction and must keep scaling by 100.
+     */
+    test("formatValue renders 0.1831 cores as a bare number", () => {
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.formatValue(0.1831, "1", {
+          metricName: "k8s.pod.cpu.utilization",
+        }),
+      ).toBe("0.18");
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.formatValue(0.1831, "1", {
+          metricName: "k8s.node.cpu.utilization",
+        }),
+      ).toBe("0.18");
+
+      // The reported dashboard string must not come back.
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.formatValue(0.1831, "1", {
+          metricName: "k8s.pod.cpu.utilization",
+        }),
+      ).not.toContain("%");
+
+      // The genuine ratio metric is untouched.
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.formatValue(0.25, "1", {
+          metricName: "system.cpu.utilization",
+        }),
+      ).toBe("25.00%");
+    });
+
+    test("a multi-core pod is not reported as a four-figure percentage", () => {
+      // 1.4 cores used to render as "140.00%".
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.formatValue(1.4, "1", {
+          metricName: "k8s.node.cpu.utilization",
+        }),
+      ).toBe("1.4");
+    });
+
+    test("getReadableUnit does not label the axis 'Percent'", () => {
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.getReadableUnit("1", {
+          metricName: "k8s.pod.cpu.utilization",
+        }),
+      ).toBe("");
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.getReadableUnit("1", {
+          metricName: "k8s.node.cpu.utilization",
+        }),
+      ).toBe("");
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.getReadableUnit("1", {
+          metricName: "system.cpu.utilization",
+        }),
+      ).toBe("Percent");
+    });
+
+    test("getCompactUnit does not label the tile '%'", () => {
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.getCompactUnit("1", {
+          metricName: "k8s.pod.cpu.utilization",
+        }),
+      ).toBe("");
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.getCompactUnit("1", {
+          metricName: "k8s.node.cpu.utilization",
+        }),
+      ).toBe("");
+      expect(
+        ValueFormatter.getCompactUnit("1", {
+          metricName: "system.cpu.utilization",
+        }),
+      ).toBe("%");
+    });
+
+    test("value and unit label agree — neither scales without the other", () => {
+      /*
+       * The failure this guards is the divergent pair: a value left in
+       * cores beside a unit still reading "Percent". formatValueCompact
+       * returns both halves from one call, so they cannot drift.
+       */
+      const parts: FormattedValue = ValueFormatter.formatValueCompact(
+        0.1831,
+        "1",
+        { metricName: "k8s.pod.cpu.utilization" },
+      );
+      expect(parts.value).toBe("0.18");
+      expect(parts.unit).toBe("");
+      expect(parts.formatted).toBe("0.18");
+    });
   });
 
   describe("isHigherWorseMetric", () => {