@oneuptime/common 13.0.0 → 13.0.3

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

@@ -0,0 +1,566 @@
+import "@testing-library/jest-dom";
+import {
+  afterEach,
+  beforeEach,
+  describe,
+  expect,
+  jest,
+  test,
+} from "@jest/globals";
+import { cleanup, fireEvent, render, screen } from "@testing-library/react";
+import * as React from "react";
+import { ObjectType } from "../../../Types/JSON";
+import ObjectID from "../../../Types/ObjectID";
+import InBetween from "../../../Types/BaseDatabase/InBetween";
+import TimeRange from "../../../Types/Time/TimeRange";
+import RangeStartAndEndDateTime from "../../../Types/Time/RangeStartAndEndDateTime";
+import DashboardMode from "../../../Types/Dashboard/DashboardMode";
+import DashboardViewConfig, {
+  AutoRefreshInterval,
+} from "../../../Types/Dashboard/DashboardViewConfig";
+import DashboardBaseComponent from "../../../Types/Dashboard/DashboardComponents/DashboardBaseComponent";
+import DashboardTextComponentUtil from "../../../Utils/Dashboard/Components/DashboardTextComponent";
+import DefaultDashboardSize from "../../../Types/Dashboard/DashboardSize";
+import DashboardStackingLayers from "../../../UI/Utils/DashboardStackingLayers";
+
+/*
+ * github.com/OneUptime/oneuptime/issues/3660.
+ *
+ * "Click the topmost tile once, then open the auto-refresh picker: it is
+ * hidden behind the tile. Click a tile further down and the picker appears as
+ * intended."
+ *
+ * The click is the whole story. Clicking a widget selects it - in VIEW mode
+ * too, where selection has no other visible effect at all - and the canvas
+ * raised the selected tile's wrapper to z-index 20 so its ring and resize
+ * handles clear its neighbours. But the wrapper's only positioned ancestors
+ * were `position: relative` with `z-index: auto`, which creates no stacking
+ * context, so that 20 was resolved in the ROOT stacking context, against the
+ * toolbar menu's 10. Clicking a tile further down did not fix the layering;
+ * it just moved the raised box out from under the menu.
+ *
+ * What is asserted here is the relationship, not the numbers: the menu is
+ * painted after the selected tile, in a real DOM shaped exactly as the
+ * dashboard shell shapes it. `paintsAbove` below implements CSS 2.1
+ * Appendix E over the rendered tree, so the assertion fails the moment the
+ * canvas stops isolating - and the last test in this file proves that by
+ * taking the isolation away and watching the bug come back.
+ *
+ * jsdom has no stylesheet (Tailwind arrives via the Play CDN at runtime), so
+ * only INLINE style is computable here. Every property this file reads -
+ * isolation, position, z-index, transform - is inline in the components under
+ * test, which is why the fix is written as inline style rather than as a
+ * Tailwind class. The Tailwind-class side of the same contract is pinned
+ * against the sources in App/Tests/Dashboard/DashboardCanvasLayering.test.ts.
+ */
+
+/*
+ * The one mock. DashboardBaseComponent is the fan-out to ~60 widget
+ * implementations and none of them are under test; the tile WRAPPER, which is
+ * where the bug lives, stays real. The stub keeps the two things the wrapper's
+ * behaviour depends on: it forwards the click that selects, and it carries a
+ * transform, because the real card always sets `transform: scale(1)` and that
+ * makes the card a stacking context of its own.
+ */
+jest.mock(
+  "../../../../App/FeatureSet/Dashboard/src/Components/Dashboard/Components/DashboardBaseComponent",
+  () => {
+    const reactModule: typeof React = jest.requireActual(
+      "react",
+    ) as typeof React;
+
+    return {
+      __esModule: true,
+      default: (props: {
+        componentId: { toString: () => string };
+        onClick: () => void;
+      }) => {
+        return reactModule.createElement("div", {
+          "data-testid": `widget-${props.componentId.toString()}`,
+          style: { transform: "scale(1)" },
+          onClick: () => {
+            props.onClick();
+          },
+        });
+      },
+    };
+  },
+);
+
+import DashboardCanvas from "../../../../App/FeatureSet/Dashboard/src/Components/Dashboard/Canvas/Index";
+import DashboardToolbar from "../../../../App/FeatureSet/Dashboard/src/Components/Dashboard/Toolbar/DashboardToolbar";
+
+// ── a model of CSS painting order ──────────────────────────────────────
+
+/*
+ * Which properties open a stacking context. Only the ones reachable in jsdom
+ * are listed - a class-driven one would read as absent here AND is absent from
+ * the real chain this file models, so leaving it out changes no answer.
+ */
+function createsStackingContext(element: HTMLElement): boolean {
+  if (element === element.ownerDocument.documentElement) {
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  const style: CSSStyleDeclaration = window.getComputedStyle(element);
+
+  if (style.isolation === "isolate") {
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  if (style.position === "fixed" || style.position === "sticky") {
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  if (
+    (style.position === "relative" || style.position === "absolute") &&
+    style.zIndex !== "" &&
+    style.zIndex !== "auto"
+  ) {
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  if (style.transform !== "" && style.transform !== "none") {
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  if (style.filter !== "" && style.filter !== "none") {
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  if (style.opacity !== "" && Number(style.opacity) < 1) {
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  if (style.mixBlendMode !== "" && style.mixBlendMode !== "normal") {
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  return false;
+}
+
+/** The nearest ancestor that boxes `element` into a stacking context. */
+function stackingContextOf(element: HTMLElement): HTMLElement {
+  let node: HTMLElement | null = element.parentElement;
+
+  while (node) {
+    if (createsStackingContext(node)) {
+      return node;
+    }
+
+    node = node.parentElement;
+  }
+
+  return element.ownerDocument.documentElement;
+}
+
+/** Root-first list of the stacking contexts `element` sits inside. */
+function stackingContextChain(element: HTMLElement): Array<HTMLElement> {
+  const chain: Array<HTMLElement> = [];
+  let context: HTMLElement = stackingContextOf(element);
+
+  for (;;) {
+    chain.unshift(context);
+
+    if (context === element.ownerDocument.documentElement) {
+      return chain;
+    }
+
+    context = stackingContextOf(context);
+  }
+}
+
+/*
+ * The ancestor-or-self of `element` that competes directly inside `context`.
+ * Everything below it is painted with it, atomically, wherever it lands.
+ */
+function participantIn(
+  element: HTMLElement,
+  context: HTMLElement,
+): HTMLElement {
+  let node: HTMLElement = element;
+
+  while (stackingContextOf(node) !== context) {
+    const parent: HTMLElement | null = node.parentElement;
+
+    if (!parent) {
+      throw new Error(
+        "participantIn was given an element that does not live inside the context it was asked about.",
+      );
+    }
+
+    node = parent;
+  }
+
+  return node;
+}
+
+/*
+ * The stack level a box competes at inside its own context. `auto` and `0` are
+ * the same level (CSS 2.1 Appendix E paints them together in tree order), and
+ * an element that opens a stacking context for some other reason - a transform,
+ * say - joins them there.
+ *
+ * A browser would ignore a z-index on a static box; this deliberately does
+ * not, because jsdom cannot see class-driven `position`. The toolbar panel is
+ * positioned by Tailwind's `absolute` and carries only its z-index inline, so
+ * requiring positioned-ness here would silently read the real, load-bearing
+ * layer of the element under test as zero. Erring the other way costs nothing:
+ * a z-index that a browser would ignore is a mistake this file should surface,
+ * not quietly agree with.
+ */
+function stackLevelOf(element: HTMLElement): number {
+  const zIndex: string = window.getComputedStyle(element).zIndex;
+
+  if (zIndex === "" || zIndex === "auto") {
+    return 0;
+  }
+
+  return Number(zIndex);
+}
+
+/**
+ * True when `a` is painted after - and so over - `b`, per CSS 2.1 Appendix E.
+ *
+ * Both boxes are reduced to whichever ancestor competes inside their deepest
+ * shared stacking context, since a stacking context is painted atomically. The
+ * winner is the higher stack level, or, at equal levels, the one later in the
+ * document.
+ */
+function paintsAbove(a: HTMLElement, b: HTMLElement): boolean {
+  const chainA: Array<HTMLElement> = stackingContextChain(a);
+  const chainB: Array<HTMLElement> = stackingContextChain(b);
+
+  let shared: HTMLElement = a.ownerDocument.documentElement;
+
+  for (
+    let depth: number = 0;
+    depth < Math.min(chainA.length, chainB.length);
+    depth++
+  ) {
+    if (chainA[depth] !== chainB[depth]) {
+      break;
+    }
+
+    shared = chainA[depth]!;
+  }
+
+  const boxA: HTMLElement = participantIn(a, shared);
+  const boxB: HTMLElement = participantIn(b, shared);
+
+  if (boxA === boxB) {
+    throw new Error(
+      "paintsAbove was asked to order two boxes that are painted as one. Give it elements that really do compete.",
+    );
+  }
+
+  const levelA: number = stackLevelOf(boxA);
+  const levelB: number = stackLevelOf(boxB);
+
+  if (levelA !== levelB) {
+    return levelA > levelB;
+  }
+
+  return Boolean(
+    boxB.compareDocumentPosition(boxA) & Node.DOCUMENT_POSITION_FOLLOWING,
+  );
+}
+
+// ── the board under test ───────────────────────────────────────────────
+
+const TOP_TILE_ID: ObjectID = new ObjectID(
+  "11111111-1111-4111-8111-111111111111",
+);
+const LOWER_TILE_ID: ObjectID = new ObjectID(
+  "22222222-2222-4222-8222-222222222222",
+);
+
+function makeTile(componentId: ObjectID, top: number): DashboardBaseComponent {
+  return {
+    ...DashboardTextComponentUtil.getDefaultComponent(),
+    componentId,
+    topInDashboardUnits: top,
+    leftInDashboardUnits: 0,
+  };
+}
+
+const VIEW_CONFIG: DashboardViewConfig = {
+  _type: ObjectType.DashboardViewConfig,
+  components: [makeTile(TOP_TILE_ID, 0), makeTile(LOWER_TILE_ID, 3)],
+  heightInDashboardUnits: DefaultDashboardSize.heightInDashboardUnits,
+};
+
+const RANGE: RangeStartAndEndDateTime = {
+  range: TimeRange.PAST_ONE_HOUR,
+  startAndEndDate: new InBetween<Date>(
+    new Date("2026-09-08T10:00:00.000Z"),
+    new Date("2026-09-08T11:00:00.000Z"),
+  ),
+};
+
+function noop(): void {
+  return undefined;
+}
+
+/*
+ * The dashboard shell's own shape: the toolbar and the canvas as siblings
+ * under one plain wrapper, exactly as
+ * App/FeatureSet/Dashboard/src/Components/Dashboard/DashboardView.tsx renders
+ * them. Neither wrapper carries a stacking context, and that is the point -
+ * the fix must not depend on one appearing above the canvas.
+ */
+const DashboardShell: React.FunctionComponent = (): React.ReactElement => {
+  const [selectedComponentId, setSelectedComponentId] =
+    React.useState<ObjectID | null>(null);
+
+  return (
+    <div className="min-h-screen">
+      <DashboardToolbar
+        dashboardMode={DashboardMode.View}
+        dashboardName="Monitor Dashboard"
+        dashboardViewConfig={VIEW_CONFIG}
+        isSaving={false}
+        canEditDashboard={true}
+        startAndEndDate={RANGE}
+        onStartAndEndDateChange={noop}
+        autoRefreshInterval={AutoRefreshInterval.OFF}
+        onAutoRefreshIntervalChange={noop}
+        onEditClick={noop}
+        onSaveClick={noop}
+        onCancelEditClick={noop}
+        onFullScreenClick={noop}
+        onAddComponentClick={noop}
+      />
+      <div className="px-1 pb-4 mx-3 mb-4 rounded-2xl border border-gray-200/60">
+        <DashboardCanvas
+          dashboardViewConfig={VIEW_CONFIG}
+          onDashboardViewConfigChange={noop}
+          isEditMode={false}
+          currentTotalDashboardWidthInPx={1200}
+          selectedComponentId={selectedComponentId}
+          onComponentSelected={(componentId: ObjectID) => {
+            setSelectedComponentId(componentId);
+          }}
+          onComponentUnselected={() => {
+            setSelectedComponentId(null);
+          }}
+          metrics={{ metricTypes: [], telemetryAttributes: [] }}
+          dashboardStartAndEndDate={RANGE}
+        />
+      </div>
+    </div>
+  );
+};
+
+function tileWrapperOf(componentId: ObjectID): HTMLElement {
+  const wrapper: HTMLElement | null = document.getElementById(
+    `dashboard-component-${componentId.toString()}`,
+  );
+
+  if (!wrapper) {
+    throw new Error(
+      `The canvas no longer renders a tile wrapper with id dashboard-component-${componentId.toString()}. Re-point this test at whatever now carries the tile's z-index.`,
+    );
+  }
+
+  return wrapper;
+}
+
+function positionerElement(): HTMLElement {
+  const positioner: HTMLElement | null =
+    tileWrapperOf(TOP_TILE_ID).parentElement;
+
+  if (!positioner) {
+    throw new Error("The tile wrapper is no longer inside a positioner.");
+  }
+
+  return positioner;
+}
+
+function selectTile(componentId: ObjectID): void {
+  fireEvent.click(screen.getByTestId(`widget-${componentId.toString()}`));
+}
+
+/*
+ * Opens the picker and hands back its panel. The panel is found as "the
+ * wrapper's child that is not the trigger" rather than by text, so a reworded
+ * interval label cannot silently turn these assertions into no-ops - and the
+ * option count is checked, so a panel that rendered empty would fail loudly
+ * instead of passing a layering test about nothing.
+ */
+function openAutoRefreshMenu(): HTMLElement {
+  const trigger: HTMLElement = screen.getByTitle("Auto-refresh settings");
+
+  fireEvent.click(trigger);
+
+  const wrapper: HTMLElement | null = trigger.parentElement;
+
+  if (!wrapper) {
+    throw new Error("The auto-refresh trigger is no longer inside a wrapper.");
+  }
+
+  const panel: HTMLElement | undefined = Array.from(wrapper.children).find(
+    (child: Element): boolean => {
+      return child !== trigger;
+    },
+  ) as HTMLElement | undefined;
+
+  if (!panel) {
+    throw new Error(
+      "Clicking the auto-refresh trigger no longer opens a panel next to it.",
+    );
+  }
+
+  expect(panel.querySelectorAll("button")).toHaveLength(
+    Object.values(AutoRefreshInterval).length,
+  );
+
+  return panel;
+}
+
+beforeEach(() => {
+  render(<DashboardShell />);
+});
+
+afterEach(() => {
+  cleanup();
+});
+
+describe("the auto-refresh picker opens above the board (issue #3660)", () => {
+  test("the reported gesture: click the topmost tile, then open the picker", () => {
+    selectTile(TOP_TILE_ID);
+
+    const tile: HTMLElement = tileWrapperOf(TOP_TILE_ID);
+    const panel: HTMLElement = openAutoRefreshMenu();
+
+    /* The tile really is raised - this is not passing because nothing happened. */
+    expect(tile.style.zIndex).toBe(
+      String(DashboardStackingLayers.canvasSelectedComponent),
+    );
+
+    expect(paintsAbove(panel, tile)).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  test("and with no tile clicked at all, which always worked", () => {
+    const tile: HTMLElement = tileWrapperOf(TOP_TILE_ID);
+    const panel: HTMLElement = openAutoRefreshMenu();
+
+    expect(tile.style.zIndex).toBe("");
+    expect(paintsAbove(panel, tile)).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  test("clicking a tile further down does not put the first one back on top", () => {
+    /*
+     * The report's workaround. Both tiles are checked, because the bug was
+     * never about which tile was clicked - only about which one happened to
+     * sit under the menu.
+     */
+    selectTile(LOWER_TILE_ID);
+
+    const panel: HTMLElement = openAutoRefreshMenu();
+
+    expect(paintsAbove(panel, tileWrapperOf(TOP_TILE_ID))).toBe(true);
+    expect(paintsAbove(panel, tileWrapperOf(LOWER_TILE_ID))).toBe(true);
+  });
+
+  test("nor can the highest layer the board is able to reach", () => {
+    /*
+     * UseDashboardGridDnd elevates a grabbed card imperatively, to a number
+     * well above the one the menu asks for. A real drag only happens in edit
+     * mode, where this picker is not mounted - but the arithmetic is what the
+     * boundary has to hold, and holding it here is what keeps the board from
+     * covering the dialogs that DO open over it while it is edited.
+     */
+    const tile: HTMLElement = tileWrapperOf(TOP_TILE_ID);
+    tile.style.zIndex = String(DashboardStackingLayers.canvasDraggingComponent);
+
+    const panel: HTMLElement = openAutoRefreshMenu();
+
+    expect(DashboardStackingLayers.canvasDraggingComponent).toBeGreaterThan(
+      DashboardStackingLayers.toolbarPopup,
+    );
+    expect(paintsAbove(panel, tile)).toBe(true);
+  });
+});
+
+describe("the canvas keeps its layers to itself", () => {
+  test("the positioner is the stacking context every tile lives in", () => {
+    selectTile(TOP_TILE_ID);
+
+    expect(stackingContextOf(tileWrapperOf(TOP_TILE_ID))).toBe(
+      positionerElement(),
+    );
+    expect(window.getComputedStyle(positionerElement()).isolation).toBe(
+      "isolate",
+    );
+  });
+
+  test("the positioner claims no z-index of its own", () => {
+    /*
+     * An isolated box that also took a z-index would re-enter the competition
+     * it was added to leave, and the whole board would outrank the toolbar
+     * again as one piece.
+     */
+    expect(positionerElement().style.zIndex).toBe("");
+  });
+
+  test("the toolbar's menu and the board are not even in the same contest", () => {
+    selectTile(TOP_TILE_ID);
+
+    const panel: HTMLElement = openAutoRefreshMenu();
+
+    expect(stackingContextOf(panel)).not.toBe(
+      stackingContextOf(tileWrapperOf(TOP_TILE_ID)),
+    );
+  });
+
+  test("the raise still does its job: a selected tile covers its neighbours", () => {
+    /*
+     * The other way to make this bug go away is to stop raising the tile,
+     * which would put the selection ring and the resize handles back under
+     * the neighbouring cards they overhang.
+     */
+    selectTile(TOP_TILE_ID);
+
+    expect(
+      paintsAbove(tileWrapperOf(TOP_TILE_ID), tileWrapperOf(LOWER_TILE_ID)),
+    ).toBe(true);
+  });
+});
+
+describe("the isolation is what is holding this up", () => {
+  /*
+   * Proof that the assertions above are load-bearing rather than trivially
+   * true. Both cases take the isolation away and watch the canvas's numbers
+   * escape into the page again - which is also why raising the menu on its own
+   * was never the fix.
+   */
+
+  test("without it, the shipped-before layering reproduces the report exactly", () => {
+    selectTile(TOP_TILE_ID);
+
+    const tile: HTMLElement = tileWrapperOf(TOP_TILE_ID);
+    const panel: HTMLElement = openAutoRefreshMenu();
+
+    expect(paintsAbove(panel, tile)).toBe(true);
+
+    /* The board and the menu as they shipped before the fix. */
+    positionerElement().style.isolation = "";
+    panel.style.zIndex = "10";
+
+    expect(paintsAbove(panel, tile)).toBe(false);
+  });
+
+  test("without it, even the menu's new layer loses to a widget mid-drag", () => {
+    const tile: HTMLElement = tileWrapperOf(TOP_TILE_ID);
+    const panel: HTMLElement = openAutoRefreshMenu();
+
+    tile.style.zIndex = String(DashboardStackingLayers.canvasDraggingComponent);
+
+    expect(paintsAbove(panel, tile)).toBe(true);
+
+    positionerElement().style.isolation = "";
+
+    expect(paintsAbove(panel, tile)).toBe(false);
+  });
+});