Fix Flaky Spec in Issue State Tests

changed milestone to %16.4

added OKR-FE failureflaky-test groupproject management issues ~17053143 quarantineflaky test typemaintenance labels and removed groupknowledge label

added pipeline:expedite label

added frontend label

2 Warnings

This merge request contains lines with testid selectors. Please ensure e2e:package-and-test job is run.

This merge request changed undocumented Vue components in vue_shared/. Please consider creating Stories for these components:

app/assets/javascripts/vue_shared/issuable/show/components/issuable_header.vue

1 Message

CHANGELOG missing:

If you want to create a changelog entry for GitLab FOSS, add the Changelog trailer to the commit message you want to add to the changelog.

If you want to create a changelog entry for GitLab EE, also add the EE: true trailer to your commit message.

If this merge request doesn't need a CHANGELOG entry, feel free to ignore this message.

Testid Selectors

The following changed lines in this MR contain testid selectors:

file app/assets/javascripts/vue_shared/issuable/show/components/issuable_header.vue:

 <gl-badge :variant="badgeVariant" data-testid="issue-state-badge">

file spec/features/issues/issue_state_spec.rb:

 expect(page).to have_selector('[data-testid="issue-state-badge"]')

 expect(find('[data-testid="issue-state-badge"]')).to have_content 'Open'

 expect(find('[data-testid="issue-state-badge"]')).to have_content 'Closed'

 expect(page).to have_selector('[data-testid="issue-state-badge"]')

 expect(find('[data-testid="issue-state-badge"]')).to have_content 'Closed'

 expect(find('[data-testid="issue-state-badge"]')).to have_content 'Open'

If the e2e:package-and-test job in the qa stage has run automatically, please ensure the tests are passing. If the job has not run, please start the trigger-omnibus-and-follow-up-e2e job in the qa stage and ensure the tests in follow-up-e2e:package-and-test-ee pipeline are passing.

For the list of known failures please refer to the latest pipeline triage issue.

If your changes are under a feature flag, please check our Testing with feature flags documentation for instructions.

Reviewer roulette

Changes that require review have been detected!

Please refer to the table below for assigning reviewers and maintainers suggested by Danger in the specified category:

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
frontend	Diana Zubova (`@dzubova`) (UTC+2, 1 hour ahead of `@johnhope`)	Enrique Alcántara (`@ealcantara`) (UTC-4, 5 hours behind `@johnhope`)
test for `spec/features/*`	Andrejs Cunskis (`@acunskis`) (UTC+3, 2 hours ahead of `@johnhope`)	Maintainer review is optional for test for `spec/features/*`

To spread load more evenly across eligible reviewers, Danger has picked a candidate for each review slot, based on their timezone. Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.

Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.

If needed, you can retry the danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by Danger

@johnhope Some end-to-end (E2E) tests should run based on the stage label.

Please start the trigger-omnibus-and-follow-up-e2e job in the qa stage and ensure tests in the follow-up-e2e:package-and-test-ee pipeline pass before this MR is merged. (E2E tests are computationally intensive and don't run automatically for every push/rebase, so we ask you to run this job manually at least once.)

To run all E2E tests, apply the pipeline:run-all-e2e label and run a new pipeline.

E2E test jobs are allowed to fail due to flakiness. See current failures at the latest pipeline triage issue.

Once done, apply the emoji on this comment.

For any questions or help, reach out on the internal #quality Slack channel.

Bundle size analysis [beta]

This compares changes in bundle size for entry points between the commits 9398e5f6 and f3a7d89c

Special assets

Entrypoint / Name	Size before	Size after	Diff	Diff in percent
average	4.17 MB	4.17 MB	-	0.0 %
mainChunk	3.02 MB	3.02 MB	-	0.0 %

Note: We do not have exact data for 9398e5f6. So we have used data from: 13810710.
The intended commit has no webpack pipeline, so we chose the last commit with one before it.

Please look at the full report for more details

Allure report

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

e2e-test-on-gdk: test report for f3a7d89c

expand test summary

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          suites summary                          |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|             | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Plan        | 51     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 51    | ✅     |
| Create      | 38     | 0      | 0       | 2     | 38    | ❗     |
| Data Stores | 20     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 20    | ✅     |
| Govern      | 34     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 34    | ✅     |
| Verify      | 8      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 8     | ✅     |
| Manage      | 12     | 0      | 1       | 1     | 13    | ❗     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total       | 163    | 0      | 1       | 3     | 164   | ❗     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

e2e-package-and-test: test report for 7227b8ad

expand test summary

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                            suites summary                             |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|                  | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Plan             | 246    | 0      | 10      | 0     | 256   | ✅     |
| Create           | 151    | 0      | 20      | 13    | 171   | ❗     |
| Monitor          | 8      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 8     | ✅     |
| Govern           | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Framework sanity | 0      | 0      | 2       | 0     | 2     | ➖     |
| Package          | 0      | 0      | 2       | 0     | 2     | ➖     |
| Data Stores      | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Manage           | 2      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total            | 415    | 0      | 34      | 13    | 449   | ❗     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

e2e-review-qa: test report for f3a7d89c

expand test summary

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                            suites summary                             |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|                  | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Plan             | 50     | 0      | 1       | 0     | 51    | ✅     |
| Create           | 8      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 9     | ✅     |
| Govern           | 2      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
| Data Stores      | 2      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
| Package          | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Framework sanity | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Manage           | 1      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 1     | ✅     |
| Monitor          | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total            | 67     | 0      | 4       | 0     | 71    | ✅     |
+------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

marked this merge request as ready

@dchevalier2 Would you mind reviewing this please?

@dzubova FE review should be very straightforward here but I think we have to do it anyways. Could you review it please?

requested review from @dchevalier2 and @dzubova

approved this merge request

removed review request for @dzubova

@dzubova, thanks for approving this merge request.

This is the first time the merge request is approved. To ensure full test coverage, a new pipeline will be started shortly.

For more info, please refer to the following links:

added pipeline:mr-approved label

added 237 commits

7227b8ad...e49582cd - 233 commits from branch master
0c65ad66 - Add testid and re-enable spec
ab7398b6 - Fix specs with disabled FF
7e07ab2a - Test both configurations of the FF
f3a7d89c - Remove unneccessary wait_for_requests

Compare with previous version

requested review from @justin_ho

approved this merge request

removed review request for @dchevalier2

approved this merge request

resolved all threads

enabled an automatic merge when the pipeline for a6caa58a succeeds

merged

@justin_ho, did you forget to run a pipeline before you merged this work? Based on our code review process, if the latest pipeline was created more than 6 hours ago OR finished more than 2 hours ago, you should:

Ensure the merge request is not in Draft status.
Start a pipeline (especially important for Community contribution merge requests).
Set the merge request to auto-merge.

This is a guideline, not a rule. Please consider replying to this comment for transparency.

This message was generated automatically. You're welcome to improve it.