@schalkneethling/toolkit 0.1.5 → 0.3.0

package/skills/frontend-testing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,357 @@
+---
+name: frontend-testing
+description: Write tests that start with acceptance criteria, then add implementation tests for robustness. Use when writing unit tests (Vitest), end-to-end tests (Playwright), visual regression tests, or accessibility tests. Emphasizes user-centric testing, semantic locators, accessibility validation, and the balance between acceptance and implementation testing.
+---
+
+# Frontend Testing
+
+Start by writing tests that validate acceptance criteria. Then add implementation tests where they provide value.
+
+## Core Principle
+
+> "The more your tests resemble the way your software is used, the more confidence they can give you." — Kent C. Dodds
+
+This principle guides testing decisions, but isn't the whole picture:
+
+- **Acceptance criteria tests** verify the system does what users/stakeholders need. These should be stable across refactors.
+- **Implementation tests** verify the pieces are robust — edge cases, error handling, complex logic. These may change when you refactor.
+
+Both have value. The anti-pattern to avoid is tests that *only* mirror implementation without validating meaningful behavior.
+
+## When to Load References
+
+Load reference files based on test type:
+
+- **Unit tests with DOM**: `references/locator-strategies.md`
+- **E2E tests**: `references/locator-strategies.md`, `references/aria-snapshots.md`
+- **Visual regression tests**: `references/visual-regression.md`
+- **Accessibility audits**: `references/accessibility-testing.md`
+- **Structure validation**: `references/aria-snapshots.md` — consolidate multiple assertions into one
+- **All tests**: Start with this file for core workflow
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Step 1: Start with Acceptance Criteria
+
+Before writing any test, identify what the code should do from the user's perspective.
+
+Ask for or extract criteria from:
+- Ticket description or user story
+- Figma annotations
+- Functional requirements
+- Product owner clarification
+
+Document criteria as a checklist. These become your first tests.
+
+**Write acceptance tests before reading implementation.** This prevents circular validation where tests just confirm "code does what code does."
+
+### Step 2: Map Criteria to Test Cases
+
+For each criterion, identify:
+- **Happy path**: Normal expected behavior
+- **Edge cases**: Boundary conditions
+- **Error cases**: Invalid inputs, failures
+
+Example mapping:
+```text
+Criterion: "User can filter products by category"
+├─ Happy path: Select category, products filter correctly
+├─ Edge case: No products match filter, show empty state
+├─ Edge case: Clear filter, all products show again
+├─ Error case: Filter API fails, show error message
+└─ Accessibility: Filter controls are keyboard accessible
+```
+
+### Step 3: Add Implementation Tests (Unit Tests)
+
+After acceptance tests pass, add unit tests for implementation robustness:
+
+- **Edge cases** the criteria don't cover (null, undefined, empty arrays, boundary values)
+- **Algorithm correctness** for complex calculations
+- **Error handling paths** (exceptions, network failures, parse errors)
+- **Complex branching logic** hard to exercise through integration tests
+- **Performance-sensitive code** that needs specific validation
+
+```text
+Function: filterProducts(products, category)
+├─ Acceptance: Returns matching products (from criteria)
+├─ Implementation: Returns empty array when products is null
+├─ Implementation: Returns all products when category is empty string
+├─ Implementation: Handles case-insensitive category matching
+└─ Implementation: Does not mutate original array
+```
+
+The distinction: acceptance tests should rarely change on refactor; implementation tests may need updates when internals change.
+
+### Step 4: Choose Test Type
+
+| Scenario | Test Type | Tool |
+|----------|-----------|------|
+| Pure logic (no DOM) | Unit test | Vitest |
+| Component behavior | Unit test with DOM | Vitest + Testing Library |
+| User flows, real browser | E2E test | Playwright |
+| Semantic structure validation | ARIA snapshot | Playwright `toMatchAriaSnapshot` |
+| Visual appearance | VRT | Playwright screenshots |
+| Accessibility compliance | A11y test | Playwright + axe-core |
+
+**ARIA snapshots** are particularly valuable for E2E tests. A single snapshot can replace multiple individual assertions while validating the accessibility tree structure.
+
+**DOM Environment for Unit Tests:** Prefer happy-dom over jsdom. It's faster, and its API limitations serve as a useful signal — if happy-dom doesn't support what you're testing, consider whether it belongs in an E2E test instead.
+
+### Step 5: Write Tests Before/Alongside Code
+
+- **Ideal**: Write test first, then implementation (TDD)
+- **Acceptable**: Write test immediately after implementing each criterion
+- **Avoid**: Write all tests after implementation is "done"
+
+## Test Structure
+
+### Unit Tests (Vitest)
+
+```javascript
+describe("calculateDiscount", () => {
+  describe("when customer has premium membership", () => {
+    it("applies 20% discount to order total", () => {
+      // Arrange - Set up test data matching criterion
+      const order = { total: 100, membership: "premium" };
+      
+      // Act - Call the function
+      const result = calculateDiscount(order);
+      
+      // Assert - Verify expected outcome from requirements
+      expect(result).toBe(80);
+    });
+  });
+});
+```
+
+### Component Tests (Vitest + Testing Library)
+
+```javascript
+import { render, screen } from "@testing-library/react";
+import userEvent from "@testing-library/user-event";
+
+describe("LoginForm", () => {
+  describe("when credentials are invalid", () => {
+    it("displays error message to user", async () => {
+      const user = userEvent.setup();
+      render(<LoginForm />);
+      
+      // Interact using accessible queries
+      await user.type(
+        screen.getByLabelText(/email/i),
+        "invalid@test.com"
+      );
+      await user.type(
+        screen.getByLabelText(/password/i),
+        "wrong"
+      );
+      await user.click(
+        screen.getByRole("button", { name: /sign in/i })
+      );
+      
+      // Assert on user-visible outcome
+      expect(
+        await screen.findByRole("alert")
+      ).toHaveTextContent(/invalid credentials/i);
+    });
+  });
+});
+```
+
+### E2E Tests (Playwright)
+
+```javascript
+import { test, expect } from "@playwright/test";
+
+test.describe("Product Catalog", () => {
+  test.describe("filtering by category", () => {
+    test("shows only matching products", async ({ page }) => {
+      await page.goto("/products");
+      
+      // Use semantic locators
+      await page.getByRole("combobox", { name: /category/i }).selectOption("Electronics");
+      
+      // Assert count, then spot-check first/last
+      const products = page.getByRole("article");
+      await expect(products).toHaveCount(5);
+      await expect(products.first()).toContainText(/electronics/i);
+      await expect(products.last()).toContainText(/electronics/i);
+    });
+  });
+});
+```
+
+When you need to verify all items, use `Promise.all` for parallel assertions:
+
+```javascript
+test("all products match filter", async ({ page }) => {
+  await page.goto("/products");
+  await page.getByRole("combobox", { name: /category/i }).selectOption("Electronics");
+  
+  const products = await page.getByRole("article").all();
+  
+  // Parallel assertions — faster than sequential await in a loop
+  await Promise.all(
+    products.map(product =>
+      expect(product.getByText(/electronics/i)).toBeVisible()
+    )
+  );
+});
+```
+
+### E2E Tests with ARIA Snapshots
+
+ARIA snapshots consolidate multiple assertions into one, validating semantic structure:
+
+```javascript
+test.describe("Login Page", () => {
+  test("has correct form structure", async ({ page }) => {
+    await page.goto("/login");
+    
+    // One snapshot replaces 5+ individual assertions
+    await expect(page.getByRole("main")).toMatchAriaSnapshot(`
+      - heading "Sign In" [level=1]
+      - textbox "Email"
+      - textbox "Password"
+      - button "Sign In"
+      - link "Forgot password?"
+    `);
+  });
+  
+  test("shows validation errors on empty submit", async ({ page }) => {
+    await page.goto("/login");
+    await page.getByRole("button", { name: /sign in/i }).click();
+    
+    await expect(page.getByRole("form")).toMatchAriaSnapshot(`
+      - textbox "Email"
+      - text "Email is required"
+      - textbox "Password"
+      - text "Password is required"
+      - button "Sign In"
+    `);
+  });
+});
+```
+
+## Locator Priority
+
+Use locators that reflect how users and assistive technologies find elements:
+
+1. **`getByRole`** — First choice. Queries accessibility tree.
+2. **`getByLabelText`** — Best for form fields. Users find inputs by labels.
+3. **`getByPlaceholderText`** — When no label exists (not ideal).
+4. **`getByText`** — For non-interactive elements.
+5. **`getByAltText`** — For images.
+6. **`getByTestId`** — Last resort escape hatch.
+
+If you can't find an element with semantic queries, the UI may have accessibility issues.
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+### Testing Only Implementation Details
+
+Tests that only verify internals without validating meaningful behavior:
+
+```javascript
+// BAD: Tests internal method exists, provides no behavior guarantee
+it("has a validateFields method", () => {
+  expect(typeof form.validateFields).toBe("function");
+});
+
+// BAD: Asserts implementation without verifying outcome
+it("calls the validator", () => {
+  expect(mockValidator).toHaveBeenCalledWith(data);
+});
+
+// GOOD: Tests observable behavior (acceptance)
+it("prevents submission with invalid email", async () => {
+  await user.type(emailInput, "not-an-email");
+  await user.click(submitButton);
+  expect(screen.getByRole("alert")).toHaveTextContent(/valid email/i);
+});
+
+// ALSO GOOD: Tests implementation robustness (unit)
+it("returns validation errors for malformed email", () => {
+  const result = validateEmail("not-an-email");
+  expect(result.valid).toBe(false);
+  expect(result.error).toBe("Invalid email format");
+});
+```
+
+The key distinction: implementation tests should verify *meaningful* behavior of units, not just that code paths execute.
+
+### Circular Validation
+
+```javascript
+// BAD: Test data derived from implementation
+const expected = formatPrice(100); // Don't compute expected from code!
+expect(formatPrice(100)).toBe(expected);
+
+// GOOD: Expected value from requirements
+expect(formatPrice(100)).toBe("$100.00");
+```
+
+### Over-Mocking
+
+```javascript
+import { vi } from "vitest";
+
+// BAD: Mock everything, test nothing real
+vi.mock("./api");
+vi.mock("./utils");
+vi.mock("./formatter");
+// Now just testing mocks talk to each other
+
+// GOOD: Mock only external boundaries
+// Mock: APIs, databases, time, file system
+// Real: Business logic, components, formatters
+```
+
+### Brittle Selectors
+
+```javascript
+// BAD: Implementation-dependent selectors
+page.locator(".btn-primary.submit-form");
+page.locator("#root > div > form > button:nth-child(3)");
+
+// GOOD: Semantic locators
+page.getByRole("button", { name: /submit order/i });
+```
+
+## Failing Tests Mean Bugs (Usually)
+
+When a test fails, the investigation depends on the test type:
+
+**Acceptance test fails:**
+1. Check the code under test first — likely a real bug
+2. Verify the test still matches current requirements — requirements may have changed
+3. Only update the test after confirming the new behavior is correct
+
+**Implementation test fails:**
+1. If you're refactoring, the test may legitimately need updating
+2. If you're not refactoring, check the code — likely a bug
+3. Consider whether the test is too tightly coupled to implementation
+
+Don't reflexively update tests to pass. Investigate why they fail.
+
+## Checklist Before Submitting Tests
+
+- [ ] Each acceptance criterion has at least one test
+- [ ] Edge cases from criteria are covered
+- [ ] Implementation tests added for complex logic, error handling, boundary conditions
+- [ ] Tests are named descriptively (criteria-based or behavior-based)
+- [ ] Using semantic locators (getByRole, getByLabelText)
+- [ ] No tests that only verify "code runs" without validating meaningful behavior
+- [ ] Failing tests investigated appropriately (acceptance vs implementation)
+- [ ] Accessibility checks included for interactive components
+- [ ] Consider ARIA snapshots for structure validation (consolidates multiple assertions)
+
+## References
+
+Load these files for detailed guidance:
+
+- `references/locator-strategies.md` — Complete locator hierarchy with examples
+- `references/aria-snapshots.md` — Structure validation, consolidating assertions
+- `references/accessibility-testing.md` — axe-core integration, WCAG targeting
+- `references/visual-regression.md` — Screenshot testing, baseline management