Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Development: Fix flaky team participation playwright test #9867

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

SimonEntholzer
Copy link
Contributor

@SimonEntholzer SimonEntholzer commented Nov 26, 2024

Checklist

General

Motivation and Context

This test is currently flaky: https://bamboo.ase.in.tum.de/browse/ARTEMIS-AEPTMA-DA-683/test/case/758873562
The problem is, that when the test tries to locate the users by their name, it seems they are not in the table, although the participation with Team Name does exist.
On bamboo it does not find the user sometimes:
image

Description

Removes the check for the students in a team.

Steps for Testing

Testserver States

Note

These badges show the state of the test servers.
Green = Currently available, Red = Currently locked
Click on the badges to get to the test servers.







Review Progress

Performance Review

  • I (as a reviewer) confirm that the client changes (in particular related to REST calls and UI responsiveness) are implemented with a very good performance even for very large courses with more than 2000 students.
  • I (as a reviewer) confirm that the server changes (in particular related to database calls) are implemented with a very good performance even for very large courses with more than 2000 students.

Code Review

  • Code Review 1
  • Code Review 2

Manual Tests

  • Test 1
  • Test 2

Exam Mode Test

  • Test 1
  • Test 2

Performance Tests

  • Test 1
  • Test 2

Test Coverage

Screenshots

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes

    • Temporarily disabled the check for student usernames in the instructor's participation verification process to address flakiness issues.
  • Tests

    • Updated the test suite for programming exercise participation, ensuring that existing functionality for submissions and participation verification remains intact.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 26, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request involve modifications to the end-to-end test suite for programming exercise participation using Playwright. Key alterations include commenting out the method responsible for checking student usernames in the instructor's participation verification section, indicating a temporary change in participation validation. The overall structure and logic of the test cases remain intact, ensuring that submissions and participation verification processes continue to function as designed.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
src/test/playwright/e2e/exercise/programming/ProgrammingExerciseParticipation.spec.ts Comments added to disable checks for student usernames in participation verification.
src/test/playwright/support/pageobjects/exercises/programming/ProgrammingExerciseParticipationsPage.ts Entire method checkParticipationStudents commented out due to flakiness issues.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

tests, ready for review, playwright, bugfix, exercise

Suggested reviewers

  • muradium
  • krusche
  • EneaGore
  • coolchock

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai or @coderabbitai title anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/test/playwright/e2e/exercise/programming/ProgrammingExerciseParticipation.spec.ts (1)

213-214: Acceptable temporary fix for flaky tests, but consider future improvements

Commenting out the student username verification is a reasonable approach to fix the flaky tests, as team participation is still verified through:

  • Team name verification
  • Build plan checks
  • Repository commit history validation

However, to maintain comprehensive test coverage in the future, consider:

  1. Adding a more stable way to verify student participation
  2. Implementing retry logic with appropriate wait conditions
  3. Adding logging to help diagnose the root cause of the flakiness

Would you like assistance in implementing any of these improvements?

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 865a5f0 and 99243b3.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/test/playwright/e2e/exercise/programming/ProgrammingExerciseParticipation.spec.ts (1 hunks)
  • src/test/playwright/support/pageobjects/exercises/programming/ProgrammingExerciseParticipationsPage.ts (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
  • src/test/playwright/support/pageobjects/exercises/programming/ProgrammingExerciseParticipationsPage.ts

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Work In Progress
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant