test-review

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Test Review

测试审查

Review tests for a feature to catch coverage gaps and quality issues before PR.

在PR提交前，针对某个功能的测试进行审查，以发现覆盖缺口和质量问题。

Instructions

操作步骤

Identify the feature being tested (from user or recent git changes)
Find related source files: validations, tRPC routers, components, pages
Find related test files: vitest and playwright
Check coverage gaps - what's missing?
Check test quality - are assertions meaningful?
Check for common mistakes
Report findings with file:line references

确定要测试的功能（从用户需求或近期git变更中获取）
找到相关源文件：验证逻辑、tRPC路由、组件、页面
找到相关测试文件：vitest和playwright测试文件
检查覆盖缺口——哪些内容缺失？
检查测试质量——断言是否有意义？
检查常见错误
附带文件:行号引用报告审查结果

Coverage Gaps

覆盖缺口

Validation Schemas

验证Schema

tRPC Procedures

tRPC 流程

Success case returns expected shape
Error case (not found, unauthorized)
Input validation rejects bad data
Side effects happen (database updated, email sent)

成功案例返回预期结构
错误案例（未找到、未授权）
输入验证拒绝无效数据
副作用触发（数据库更新、邮件发送）

React Components

React 组件

E2E (Playwright)

E2E（Playwright）

Test Quality

测试质量

Meaningful Assertions

有意义的断言

typescript

// Bad - just checks truthy
expect(result).toBeTruthy()

// Good - checks specific value
expect(result.id).toBe('123')
expect(result.items).toHaveLength(3)

typescript

// 不佳 - 仅检查真值
expect(result).toBeTruthy()

// 良好 - 检查具体值
expect(result.id).toBe('123')
expect(result.items).toHaveLength(3)

Independent Tests

独立测试

No shared mutable state between tests
Each test sets up its own data
Order of tests doesn't matter

测试之间无共享可变状态
每个测试自行设置数据
测试执行顺序不影响结果

Realistic Mocks

真实的Mock

typescript

// Bad - mock returns nothing useful
const mockFetch = jest.fn()

// Good - mock returns realistic data
const mockFetch = jest.fn().mockResolvedValue({
  id: '123',
  name: 'Test User',
  createdAt: new Date(),
})

typescript

// 不佳 - Mock未返回有效内容
const mockFetch = jest.fn()

// 良好 - Mock返回真实数据
const mockFetch = jest.fn().mockResolvedValue({
  id: '123',
  name: 'Test User',
  createdAt: new Date(),
})

Error Testing

错误测试

typescript

// Bad - just checks it throws
expect(() => fn()).toThrow()

// Good - checks specific error
expect(() => fn()).toThrow('User not found')
expect(() => fn()).toThrow(NotFoundError)

typescript

// 不佳 - 仅检查是否抛出错误
expect(() => fn()).toThrow()

// 良好 - 检查具体错误
expect(() => fn()).toThrow('User not found')
expect(() => fn()).toThrow(NotFoundError)

Common Mistakes

常见错误

General

通用错误

No
```
.only
```
or
```
.skip
```
left in code
No
```
console.log
```
in tests
No hardcoded IDs that won't exist in CI
No time-dependent tests without mocking
```
Date.now()
```

代码中残留
```
.only
```
或
```
.skip
```
测试中存在
```
console.log
```
存在CI环境中不存在的硬编码ID
未模拟
```
Date.now()
```
的时间相关测试

Async Issues

异步问题

typescript

// Bad - no await, test passes before async completes
it('creates user', () => {
  createUser({ name: 'Test' })
  expect(db.users).toHaveLength(1)
})

// Good - awaits async operation
it('creates user', async () => {
  await createUser({ name: 'Test' })
  expect(db.users).toHaveLength(1)
})

typescript

// 不佳 - 未使用await，测试在异步操作完成前就通过了
it('creates user', () => {
  createUser({ name: 'Test' })
  expect(db.users).toHaveLength(1)
})

// 良好 - 等待异步操作完成
it('creates user', async () => {
  await createUser({ name: 'Test' })
  expect(db.users).toHaveLength(1)
})

Playwright-Specific

Playwright 专属问题

Uses semantic locators (
```
getByRole
```
,
```
getByLabel
```
) not CSS selectors

page.waitForTimeout()

- use

waitForResponse

waitForSelector

, or

expect().toBeVisible()

Tests don't depend on previous test's state
Assertions check visible outcomes, not implementation

typescript

// Bad - fragile selector, arbitrary timeout
await page.click('.btn-submit')
await page.waitForTimeout(1000)

// Good - semantic locator, waits for outcome
await page.getByRole('button', { name: 'Submit' }).click()
await expect(page.getByText('Saved successfully')).toBeVisible()

使用语义化定位器（
```
getByRole
```
、
```
getByLabel
```
）而非CSS选择器

不使用

page.waitForTimeout()

——改用

waitForResponse

、

waitForSelector

或

expect().toBeVisible()

测试不依赖前序测试的状态
断言检查可见结果，而非实现细节

typescript

// 不佳 - 脆弱的选择器，任意超时
await page.click('.btn-submit')
await page.waitForTimeout(1000)

// 良好 - 语义化定位器，等待结果出现
await page.getByRole('button', { name: 'Submit' }).click()
await expect(page.getByText('Saved successfully')).toBeVisible()

Vitest-Specific

Vitest 专属问题

Mocks are reset between tests (
```
vi.clearAllMocks()
```
in
```
beforeEach
```
)
No network calls without MSW or manual mocking
```
describe
```
blocks group related tests logically

Mock在测试间重置（在
```
beforeEach
```
中使用
```
vi.clearAllMocks()
```
）
无MSW或手动Mock的情况下不发起网络请求
```
describe
```
块按逻辑分组相关测试

Output Format

输出格式

undefined

undefined

Test Review: [feature]

测试审查: [功能名称]

Coverage Gaps

覆盖缺口

validations/booking.ts has no tests for
```
updateBookingSchema
```
No E2E test for delete flow
Missing error state test for BookingForm component

validations/booking.ts 缺少
```
updateBookingSchema
```
的测试
缺少删除流程的E2E测试
BookingForm组件缺少错误状态测试

Quality Issues

质量问题

tests/vitest/booking.test.ts:23 - assertion just checks truthy, verify specific value
tests/vitest/booking.test.ts:45 - mock returns empty object, use realistic data

tests/vitest/booking.test.ts:23 - 断言仅检查真值，需验证具体值
tests/vitest/booking.test.ts:45 - Mock返回空对象，应使用真实数据

Common Mistakes

常见错误

tests/playwright/booking.spec.ts:12 - uses
```
waitForTimeout(2000)
```
, use
```
waitForResponse
```
or assertion
tests/vitest/booking.test.ts:67 -
```
.only
```
left in code

tests/playwright/booking.spec.ts:12 - 使用了
```
waitForTimeout(2000)
```
，应改用
```
waitForResponse
```
或断言
tests/vitest/booking.test.ts:67 - 代码中残留
```
.only
```

Passed

通过项

Validation schema has happy path + required field tests
tRPC procedures test success and not-found cases
No hardcoded IDs
Semantic locators used throughout

undefined

验证Schema包含正常流程和必填字段测试
tRPC流程测试了成功和未找到案例
无硬编码ID
全程使用语义化定位器

undefined

Notes

注意事项

Focus on changed files first, but check related test files too
Not every gap needs fixing - use judgment on risk vs effort
Flag
```
.only
```
and
```
.skip
```
as blockers - these break CI

优先关注变更文件，但也要检查相关测试文件
并非所有缺口都需要修复——根据风险与投入比做出判断
将
```
.only
```
和
```
.skip
```
标记为阻塞项——这些会破坏CI流程