Skip to content

Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest #771

Open
Open
Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest#771
Labels
a-Processa-Testingd.moderatep.Low

Description

@Xenonym
Xenonym
opened on Mar 14, 2019

Tell us about your environment

  • MarkBind Version: 1.20.0

Rationale: Our current test_site contains 10 pages, and is getting more unwieldy as we add new features to MarkBind that require functional testing. Since we now have the ability to use multiple test sites (#588), we should split up these pages into multiple test sites, as well as consider if the main test page can be split up as well. This will reduce the size of the diffs when updating functional tests and make it easier to verify that the updates are correct.

Related: #761 (comment)

Alternate proposal: Should we consider migrating to Jest snapshot testing? It does seem like we have accidentally rebuilt this functionality with our test sites 😅

Refer to #771 (comment) for more details

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    a-Processa-Testingd.moderatep.Low

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    2026 MarkBind Roadmap
    Status
    Discussion

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions

    , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
     blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest · Issue #771 · MarkBind/markbind · GitHub
    Skip to content
    Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest #771
    Open
    Open
    Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest#771
    Labels
    a-Processa-Testingd.moderatep.Low
    Description
    @Xenonym
    Xenonym
    opened on Mar 14, 2019
    Tell us about your environment
    • MarkBind Version: 1.20.0
    Rationale: Our current test_site contains 10 pages, and is getting more unwieldy as we add new features to MarkBind that require functional testing. Since we now have the ability to use multiple test sites (#588), we should split up these pages into multiple test sites, as well as consider if the main test page can be split up as well. This will reduce the size of the diffs when updating functional tests and make it easier to verify that the updates are correct.
    Related: #761 (comment)
    Alternate proposal: Should we consider migrating to Jest snapshot testing? It does seem like we have accidentally rebuilt this functionality with our test sites 😅
    Refer to #771 (comment) for more details
    Metadata
    Metadata
    Assignees
    No one assigned
      Labels
      a-Processa-Testingd.moderatep.Low
      Type
      No type
      Projects
      2026 MarkBind Roadmap
      Status
      Discussion
      Milestone
      No milestone
      Relationships
      None yet
      Development
      No branches or pull requests
      Issue actions
      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest · Issue #771 · MarkBind/markbind · GitHub
      Skip to content
      Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest #771
      Open
      Open
      Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest#771
      Labels
      a-Processa-Testingd.moderatep.Low
      Description
      @Xenonym
      Xenonym
      opened on Mar 14, 2019
      Tell us about your environment
      • MarkBind Version: 1.20.0
      Rationale: Our current test_site contains 10 pages, and is getting more unwieldy as we add new features to MarkBind that require functional testing. Since we now have the ability to use multiple test sites (#588), we should split up these pages into multiple test sites, as well as consider if the main test page can be split up as well. This will reduce the size of the diffs when updating functional tests and make it easier to verify that the updates are correct.
      Related: #761 (comment)
      Alternate proposal: Should we consider migrating to Jest snapshot testing? It does seem like we have accidentally rebuilt this functionality with our test sites 😅
      Refer to #771 (comment) for more details
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        a-Processa-Testingd.moderatep.Low
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        2026 MarkBind Roadmap
        Status
        Discussion
        Milestone
        No milestone
        Relationships
        None yet
        Development
        No branches or pull requests
        Issue actions
        
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest · Issue #771 · MarkBind/markbind · GitHub
        Skip to content
        Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest #771
        Open
        Open
        Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest#771
        Labels
        a-Processa-Testingd.moderatep.Low
        Description
        @Xenonym
        Xenonym
        opened on Mar 14, 2019
        Tell us about your environment
        • MarkBind Version: 1.20.0
        Rationale: Our current test_site contains 10 pages, and is getting more unwieldy as we add new features to MarkBind that require functional testing. Since we now have the ability to use multiple test sites (#588), we should split up these pages into multiple test sites, as well as consider if the main test page can be split up as well. This will reduce the size of the diffs when updating functional tests and make it easier to verify that the updates are correct.
        Related: #761 (comment)
        Alternate proposal: Should we consider migrating to Jest snapshot testing? It does seem like we have accidentally rebuilt this functionality with our test sites 😅
        Refer to #771 (comment) for more details
        Metadata
        Metadata
        Assignees
        No one assigned
          Labels
          a-Processa-Testingd.moderatep.Low
          Type
          No type
          Projects
          2026 MarkBind Roadmap
          Status
          Discussion
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest · Issue #771 · MarkBind/markbind · GitHub
          Skip to content
          Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest #771
          Open
          Open
          Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest#771
          Labels
          a-Processa-Testingd.moderatep.Low
          Description
          @Xenonym
          Xenonym
          opened on Mar 14, 2019
          Tell us about your environment
          • MarkBind Version: 1.20.0
          Rationale: Our current test_site contains 10 pages, and is getting more unwieldy as we add new features to MarkBind that require functional testing. Since we now have the ability to use multiple test sites (#588), we should split up these pages into multiple test sites, as well as consider if the main test page can be split up as well. This will reduce the size of the diffs when updating functional tests and make it easier to verify that the updates are correct.
          Related: #761 (comment)
          Alternate proposal: Should we consider migrating to Jest snapshot testing? It does seem like we have accidentally rebuilt this functionality with our test sites 😅
          Refer to #771 (comment) for more details
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            a-Processa-Testingd.moderatep.Low
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            2026 MarkBind Roadmap
            Status
            Discussion
            Milestone
            No milestone
            Relationships
            None yet
            Development
            No branches or pull requests
            Issue actions
            
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest · Issue #771 · MarkBind/markbind · GitHub
            Skip to content
            Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest #771
            Open
            Open
            Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest#771
            Labels
            a-Processa-Testingd.moderatep.Low
            Description
            @Xenonym
            Xenonym
            opened on Mar 14, 2019
            Tell us about your environment
            • MarkBind Version: 1.20.0
            Rationale: Our current test_site contains 10 pages, and is getting more unwieldy as we add new features to MarkBind that require functional testing. Since we now have the ability to use multiple test sites (#588), we should split up these pages into multiple test sites, as well as consider if the main test page can be split up as well. This will reduce the size of the diffs when updating functional tests and make it easier to verify that the updates are correct.
            Related: #761 (comment)
            Alternate proposal: Should we consider migrating to Jest snapshot testing? It does seem like we have accidentally rebuilt this functionality with our test sites 😅
            Refer to #771 (comment) for more details
            Metadata
            Metadata
            Assignees
            No one assigned
              Labels
              a-Processa-Testingd.moderatep.Low
              Type
              No type
              Projects
              2026 MarkBind Roadmap
              Status
              Discussion
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
})();
Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest · Issue #771 · MarkBind/markbind · GitHub
              Skip to content
              Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest #771
              Open
              Open
              Explore migrating functional tests to be managed and invoked with jest#771
              Labels
              a-Processa-Testingd.moderatep.Low
              Description
              @Xenonym
              Xenonym
              opened on Mar 14, 2019
              Tell us about your environment
              • MarkBind Version: 1.20.0
              Rationale: Our current test_site contains 10 pages, and is getting more unwieldy as we add new features to MarkBind that require functional testing. Since we now have the ability to use multiple test sites (#588), we should split up these pages into multiple test sites, as well as consider if the main test page can be split up as well. This will reduce the size of the diffs when updating functional tests and make it easier to verify that the updates are correct.
              Related: #761 (comment)
              Alternate proposal: Should we consider migrating to Jest snapshot testing? It does seem like we have accidentally rebuilt this functionality with our test sites 😅
              Refer to #771 (comment) for more details
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                a-Processa-Testingd.moderatep.Low
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                2026 MarkBind Roadmap
                Status
                Discussion
                Milestone
                No milestone
                Relationships
                None yet
                Development
                No branches or pull requests
                Issue actions