- Element naming convention
- Block argument naming
This document describes the conventions used at GitLab for writing End-to-end (E2E) tests using the GitLab QA project.
When clicking in a single link to navigate, use
def click_ci_cd_pipelines within_sidebar do click_element :link_pipelines end end
From a testing perspective, if we want to check that clicking a link, or a button (a single interaction) is working as intended, we would want the test to read as:
- Click a certain element
- Verify the action took place
When interacting with multiple elements to go to a page, use
def go_to_operations_environments hover_operations do within_submenu do click_element(:operations_environments_link) end end end
go_to_ fits the definition of interacting with multiple elements very well given it’s more of a meta-navigation action that includes multiple interactions.
Notice that in the above example, before clicking the
:operations_environments_link, another element is hovered over.
We can create these methods as helpers to abstract multi-step navigation.
When adding new elements to a page, it’s important that we have a uniform element naming convention.
We follow a simple formula roughly based on Hungarian notation.
descriptor: The natural-language description of what the element is. On the login page, this could be
type: A generic control on the page that can be seen by a user.
_container: an element that includes other elements, but doesn’t present visible content itself. E.g., an element that has a third-party editor inside it, but which isn’t the editor itself and so doesn’t include the editor’s content.
_content: any element that contains text, images, or any other content displayed to the user.
_field: a text input element.
_modal: a popup modal dialog, e.g., a confirmation prompt.
_placeholder: a temporary element that appears while content is loading. For example, the elements that are displayed instead of discussions while the discussions are being fetched.
Note: If none of the listed types are suitable, please open a merge request to add an appropriate type to the list.
view '...' do element :edit_button element :notes_tab element :squash_checkbox element :username_field element :issue_title_content end
view '...' do # `_confirmation` should be `_field`. what sort of confirmation? a checkbox confirmation? no real way to disambiguate. # an appropriate replacement would be `element :password_confirmation_field` element :password_confirmation # `clone_options` is too vague. If it's a dropdown menu, it should be `clone_dropdown`. # If it's a checkbox, it should be `clone_checkbox` element :clone_options # how is this url being displayed? is it a textbox? a simple span? # If it is content on the page, it should be `ssh_clone_url_content` element :ssh_clone_url end
To have a standard on what we call pages and resources when using the
we use the name of the page object in snake_case
(all lowercase, with words separated by an underscore). See good and bad examples below.
While we prefer to follow the standard in most cases, it is also acceptable to
use common abbreviations (e.g.,
mr) or other alternatives, as long as
the name is not ambiguous. This can include appending
_page if it helps to
avoid confusion or make the code more readable. For example, if a page object is
New, it could be confusing to name the block argument
new because that
is used to instantiate objects, so
new_page would be acceptable.
We chose not to simply use
page because that would shadow the
Capybara DSL, potentially leading to confusion and bugs.
Page::Project::Members.perform do |members| members.do_something end
Resource::MergeRequest.fabricate! do |merge_request| merge_request.do_something_else end
Resource::MergeRequest.fabricate! do |mr| mr.do_something_else end
Page::Project::New.peform do |new_page| new_page.do_something end
Page::Project::Members.perform do |project_settings_members_page| project_settings_members_page.do_something end
Page::Project::New.peform do |page| page.do_something end
Besides the advantage of having a standard in place, by following this standard we also write shorter lines of code.