Copy failed spec names to clipboard from MR widget
What does this MR do and why?
Adds an easy way to copy the path of all tests with failures so users can rerun them locally. The button can be found in the test results of the MR widget.
Also adds a copy-to-clipboard button for individual tests in the test case modal.
Screenshots or screen recordings
Copying test files:
Test Case | Recording |
---|---|
Copy all failed specs | Screen_Recording_2022-07-06_at_17.13.57 |
Copy individual spec files | Screen_Recording_2022-07-06_at_17.14.17 |
Rendering Conditions:
Test Case | Screenshot |
---|---|
Button should not show up when pipeline is successful | ![]() |
Button should not show up when data failed to load | ![]() |
Button should show up in the dropdown on smaller screens | ![]() |
How to set up and validate locally
Setup
- Enable the
refactor_mr_widgets_extensions
feature flag. (echo "Feature.disable(:refactor_mr_widgets_extensions)" | rails c
) - Set up your project to use unit test reports; or clone this project and set it up with GDK.
- Run a pipeline from the default branch.
- Edit files to make some tests fail then open a merge request.
- If you cloned the above project, you can just create an MR from the
failing-specs
branch.
- Wait for the pipeline to finish.
Test Cases
- In the test reports of the MR page, click on the vertical ellipses next to the
Full Report
link. This should copy all the failing specs to your clipboard. - Expand the tab and view an individual test case. In the modal, you should be able to copy the file path through the copy-to-clipboard button.
MR acceptance checklist
This checklist encourages us to confirm any changes have been analyzed to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.
-
I have evaluated the MR acceptance checklist for this MR.
Merge request reports
Activity
assigned to @mgandres
Suggested Reviewers (beta)
The individuals below may be good candidates to participate in the review based on various factors.
You can use slash commands in comments to quickly assign
/assign_reviewer @user1
.Suggested Reviewers @dbalexandre
,@mayra-cabrera
,@dzaporozhets
,@marin
,@kushalpandya
If you do not believe these suggestions are useful, please apply the label Bad Suggested Reviewer. You can also provide feedback for this feature on this issue:
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/357923
.Automatically generated by Suggested Reviewers Bot - an experimental ML-based recommendation engine created by ~"group::applied ml".
Edited by GitLab Reviewer-Recommender Bot- A deleted user
added featureaddition frontend typefeature labels
3 Warnings featureaddition and featureenhancement merge requests normally have a documentation change. Consider adding a documentation update or confirming the documentation plan with the Technical Writer counterpart.
For more information, see:
- The Handbook page on merge request types.
- The definition of done documentation.
This merge request contains deprecated components. Please consider using Pajamas components instead. This merge request does not refer to an existing milestone. Deprecated components
These deprecated components are in the process of being migrated. Please consider using Pajamas components instead.
- .tooltip
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 Paul Gascou-Vaillancourt ( @pgascouvaillancourt
) (UTC-4, 12 hours behind@mgandres
)Phil Hughes ( @iamphill
) (UTC+1, 7 hours behind@mgandres
)UX Daniel Mora ( @dmoraBerlin
) (UTC+2, 6 hours behind@mgandres
)Pedro Moreira da Silva ( @pedroms
) (UTC+1, 7 hours behind@mgandres
)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
DangerBundle size analysis [beta]
This compares changes in bundle size for entry points between the commits 030a99b7 and 5419abe3
Special assetsEntrypoint / Name Size before Size after Diff Diff in percent average 3.45 MB 3.45 MB -1.03 KB -0.0 % mainChunk 1.88 MB 1.88 MB - -0.0 %
Note: We do not have exact data for 030a99b7. So we have used data from: 5f99d190.
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
Read more about how this report works.
Generated by
DangerAllure report
allure-report-publisher
generated test report!review-qa-blocking:
test report for 5419abe3expand test summary
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | suites summary | +------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result | +------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | Create | 23 | 0 | 2 | 23 | 25 | ❗ | | Plan | 47 | 0 | 1 | 47 | 48 | ❗ | | Manage | 38 | 0 | 2 | 40 | 40 | ❗ | | Verify | 12 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 13 | ❗ | | Version sanity check | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ➖ | | Secure | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | ❗ | | Protect | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | ❗ | | Package | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ➖ | | Feature flag handler sanity checks | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | ✅ | | Configure | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ➖ | +------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+ | Total | 133 | 0 | 9 | 126 | 142 | ❗ | +------------------------------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
added 366 commits
-
0b3eb0ef...b226a8a4 - 365 commits from branch
master
- 1d64d30b - Copy failed spec names to clipboard from MR widget
-
0b3eb0ef...b226a8a4 - 365 commits from branch
added 1 commit
- cced4ba8 - Copy failed spec names to clipboard from MR widget
- Resolved by Scott Hampton
@allison.browne @gdoyle While going through the code, I noticed that the MR widget extensions automatically add the dropdown for smaller screens:
What do you think about doing this instead? There's enough space for larger screens, and it will all collapse to a dropdown on smaller screens. It would be easier to discover for the users.
requested review from @gdoyle
Setting label grouppipeline authoring based on
@mgandres
's group.added grouppipeline authoring label
Setting label(s) devopsverify sectionops based on grouppipeline authoring.
added devopsverify sectionops labels
added UX label
- Resolved by Scott Hampton
Please wait for Reviewer Roulette to suggest a designer for UX review, and then assign them as Reviewer. This helps evenly distribute reviews across UX.
- Resolved by Gina Doyle
- Resolved by Mireya Andres
- Resolved by Gina Doyle
added 461 commits
-
cced4ba8...f5b721f8 - 460 commits from branch
master
- ff4ba3aa - Copy failed spec names to clipboard from MR widget
-
cced4ba8...f5b721f8 - 460 commits from branch
@gdoyle
, thanks for approving this merge request.This is the first time the merge request is approved. To ensure full test coverage, a new pipeline has been started.
For more info, please refer to the following links:
removed review request for @gdoyle
added 202 commits
-
ff4ba3aa...271665ec - 201 commits from branch
master
- 49d1c359 - Copy failed spec names to clipboard from MR widget
-
ff4ba3aa...271665ec - 201 commits from branch
- Resolved by Scott Hampton
@mfluharty could you give this a frontend review? This is one of the ideas from the Verify Week hackathon
requested review from @mfluharty
- Resolved by Scott Hampton
added 437 commits
-
49d1c359...8cbcfc52 - 435 commits from branch
master
- 4317774f - Copy failed spec names to clipboard from MR widget
- a11df30b - Update tooltip text when clicked
-
49d1c359...8cbcfc52 - 435 commits from branch
requested review from @shampton and removed review request for @mfluharty
enabled an automatic merge when the pipeline for 2bed3d20 succeeds
added 185 commits
-
a11df30b...7f0e35b4 - 183 commits from branch
master
- 9e33f303 - Copy failed spec names to clipboard from MR widget
- 5419abe3 - Update tooltip text when clicked
-
a11df30b...7f0e35b4 - 183 commits from branch
@shampton looks like I accidentally disabled MPWS when it tried to fix the pipeline through a rebase. Could you help get this merged again?
enabled an automatic merge when the pipeline for 1ece510a succeeds
mentioned in commit 747a5284
added workflowstaging-canary label
added workflowcanary label and removed workflowstaging-canary label
added workflowstaging label and removed workflowcanary label
added workflowproduction label and removed workflowstaging label
added workflowpost-deploy-db-staging label and removed workflowproduction label
added workflowpost-deploy-db-production label and removed workflowpost-deploy-db-staging label
added verify-hackathon label
added releasedcandidate label
added releasedpublished label and removed releasedcandidate label
mentioned in merge request kubitus-project/kubitus-installer!1252 (merged)
mentioned in issue #368825 (closed)
mentioned in merge request !93299 (merged)
changed milestone to %15.2