Skip to content

test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression#9095

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
alexcarpenter wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression #9095

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
15 changes: 15 additions & 0 deletions packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -75,6 +75,21 @@
expect(queryByText(/verifying your request/i)).not.toBeInTheDocument();
});

it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {

Check failure on line 78 in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation

GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start 

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3

Check failure on line 78 in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation

GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start 

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3
const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath = '/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath = '/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath = '/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string) => path === 'protect-check');

render(<SignUp />, { wrapper });

await waitFor(() => expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
Comment on lines +78 to +91

@coderabbitaicoderabbitaiBotJul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🩺 Stability & Availability | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win

Mark this as an expected-to-fail regression test.

Per the PR objectives, this test is intentionally documenting a currently-broken behavior (navigateToFlowStart no-ops when routed through the real SignUp/Route path="protect-check" because indexPath equals the relative currentPath). As written, this is a plain it(...) block, so it will fail in CI once merged. Use Vitest's it.fails (or skip with a tracking-issue comment) so the suite doesn't break until the underlying fix lands.

🔧 Proposed fix
- it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {+ // TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.+ it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {
📝 Committable suggestion

‼️IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change
it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
// TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.
it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx`
around lines 78 - 91, This test is documenting a known broken flow, so it should
be marked as expected-to-fail rather than a normal passing test. Update the
SignUpProtectCheck test case in SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx from a plain it(...)
to Vitest’s it.fails(...) (or another explicit expected-failure mechanism) so
the suite does not fail in CI while navigateToFlowStart and the protect-check
route behavior remain unfixed.


it('runs the SDK challenge with the URL and resource and submits the proof token', async () => {
const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
f.startSignUpWithProtectCheck({ sdkUrl: 'https://protect.example.com/v1.js' });
Expand Down
Loading
, '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" + '
test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression by alexcarpenter · Pull Request #9095 · clerk/javascript · GitHub
Skip to content
test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression#9095

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.

 Sign up for GitHub

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

 Closed

alexcarpenter
wants to merge
1
commit into

from

 Closed


test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression
#9095
 Changes from all commits
Commits

Show all changes


1 commit


Select commit


File filter

Filter by extension
Filter by extension
Conversations

Failed to load comments. 
Loading
Jump to

Jump to file


Failed to load files. 
Loading
 Diff view

 Diff view


15 changes: 15 additions & 0 deletions
packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -75,6 +75,21 @@
 expect(queryByText(/verifying your request/i)).not.toBeInTheDocument();
 });

 it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {

Check failure
on line 78
in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation
GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3


Check failure
on line 78
in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation
GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3

 const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
 f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
 });
 fixtures.router.currentPath = '/sign-up/protect-check';
 fixtures.router.fullPath = '/sign-up';
 fixtures.router.indexPath = '/sign-up';
 fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string) => path === 'protect-check');

 render(<SignUp />, { wrapper });

 await waitFor(() => expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
 expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
 });

Comment on lines

+78
 to 
+91

@coderabbitaicoderabbitaiBotJul 6, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🩺 Stability & Availability | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Mark this as an expected-to-fail regression test.
Per the PR objectives, this test is intentionally documenting a currently-broken behavior (navigateToFlowStart no-ops when routed through the real SignUp/Route path="protect-check" because indexPath equals the relative currentPath). As written, this is a plain it(...) block, so it will fail in CI once merged. Use Vitest's it.fails (or skip with a tracking-issue comment) so the suite doesn't break until the underlying fix lands.
🔧 Proposed fix
- it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {+ // TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.+ it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️IMPORTANT

Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change

it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
// TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.
it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx`
around lines 78 - 91, This test is documenting a known broken flow, so it should
be marked as expected-to-fail rather than a normal passing test. Update the
SignUpProtectCheck test case in SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx from a plain it(...)
to Vitest’s it.fails(...) (or another explicit expected-failure mechanism) so
the suite does not fail in CI while navigateToFlowStart and the protect-check
route behavior remain unfixed.


 it('runs the SDK challenge with the URL and resource and submits the proof token', async () => {
 const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
 f.startSignUpWithProtectCheck({ sdkUrl: 'https://protect.example.com/v1.js' });
Expand Down
Loading

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression by alexcarpenter · Pull Request #9095 · clerk/javascript · GitHub
Skip to content
test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression#9095

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.

 Sign up for GitHub

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

 Closed

alexcarpenter
wants to merge
1
commit into

from

 Closed


test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression
#9095
 Changes from all commits
Commits

Show all changes


1 commit


Select commit


File filter

Filter by extension
Filter by extension
Conversations

Failed to load comments. 
Loading
Jump to

Jump to file


Failed to load files. 
Loading
 Diff view

 Diff view


15 changes: 15 additions & 0 deletions
packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -75,6 +75,21 @@
 expect(queryByText(/verifying your request/i)).not.toBeInTheDocument();
 });

 it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {

Check failure
on line 78
in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation
GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3


Check failure
on line 78
in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation
GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3

 const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
 f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
 });
 fixtures.router.currentPath = '/sign-up/protect-check';
 fixtures.router.fullPath = '/sign-up';
 fixtures.router.indexPath = '/sign-up';
 fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string) => path === 'protect-check');

 render(<SignUp />, { wrapper });

 await waitFor(() => expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
 expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
 });

Comment on lines

+78
 to 
+91

@coderabbitaicoderabbitaiBotJul 6, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🩺 Stability & Availability | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Mark this as an expected-to-fail regression test.
Per the PR objectives, this test is intentionally documenting a currently-broken behavior (navigateToFlowStart no-ops when routed through the real SignUp/Route path="protect-check" because indexPath equals the relative currentPath). As written, this is a plain it(...) block, so it will fail in CI once merged. Use Vitest's it.fails (or skip with a tracking-issue comment) so the suite doesn't break until the underlying fix lands.
🔧 Proposed fix
- it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {+ // TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.+ it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️IMPORTANT

Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change

it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
// TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.
it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx`
around lines 78 - 91, This test is documenting a known broken flow, so it should
be marked as expected-to-fail rather than a normal passing test. Update the
SignUpProtectCheck test case in SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx from a plain it(...)
to Vitest’s it.fails(...) (or another explicit expected-failure mechanism) so
the suite does not fail in CI while navigateToFlowStart and the protect-check
route behavior remain unfixed.


 it('runs the SDK challenge with the URL and resource and submits the proof token', async () => {
 const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
 f.startSignUpWithProtectCheck({ sdkUrl: 'https://protect.example.com/v1.js' });
Expand Down
Loading

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression by alexcarpenter · Pull Request #9095 · clerk/javascript · GitHub
Skip to content
test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression#9095

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.

 Sign up for GitHub

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

 Closed

alexcarpenter
wants to merge
1
commit into

from

 Closed


test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression
#9095
 Changes from all commits
Commits

Show all changes


1 commit


Select commit


File filter

Filter by extension
Filter by extension
Conversations

Failed to load comments. 
Loading
Jump to

Jump to file


Failed to load files. 
Loading
 Diff view

 Diff view


15 changes: 15 additions & 0 deletions
packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -75,6 +75,21 @@
 expect(queryByText(/verifying your request/i)).not.toBeInTheDocument();
 });

 it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {

Check failure
on line 78
in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation
GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3


Check failure
on line 78
in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation
GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3

 const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
 f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
 });
 fixtures.router.currentPath = '/sign-up/protect-check';
 fixtures.router.fullPath = '/sign-up';
 fixtures.router.indexPath = '/sign-up';
 fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string) => path === 'protect-check');

 render(<SignUp />, { wrapper });

 await waitFor(() => expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
 expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
 });

Comment on lines

+78
 to 
+91

@coderabbitaicoderabbitaiBotJul 6, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🩺 Stability & Availability | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Mark this as an expected-to-fail regression test.
Per the PR objectives, this test is intentionally documenting a currently-broken behavior (navigateToFlowStart no-ops when routed through the real SignUp/Route path="protect-check" because indexPath equals the relative currentPath). As written, this is a plain it(...) block, so it will fail in CI once merged. Use Vitest's it.fails (or skip with a tracking-issue comment) so the suite doesn't break until the underlying fix lands.
🔧 Proposed fix
- it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {+ // TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.+ it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️IMPORTANT

Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change

it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
// TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.
it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx`
around lines 78 - 91, This test is documenting a known broken flow, so it should
be marked as expected-to-fail rather than a normal passing test. Update the
SignUpProtectCheck test case in SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx from a plain it(...)
to Vitest’s it.fails(...) (or another explicit expected-failure mechanism) so
the suite does not fail in CI while navigateToFlowStart and the protect-check
route behavior remain unfixed.


 it('runs the SDK challenge with the URL and resource and submits the proof token', async () => {
 const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
 f.startSignUpWithProtectCheck({ sdkUrl: 'https://protect.example.com/v1.js' });
Expand Down
Loading

, '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" + '
test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression by alexcarpenter · Pull Request #9095 · clerk/javascript · GitHub
Skip to content
test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression#9095

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.

 Sign up for GitHub

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

 Closed

alexcarpenter
wants to merge
1
commit into

from

 Closed


test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression
#9095
 Changes from all commits
Commits

Show all changes


1 commit


Select commit


File filter

Filter by extension
Filter by extension
Conversations

Failed to load comments. 
Loading
Jump to

Jump to file


Failed to load files. 
Loading
 Diff view

 Diff view


15 changes: 15 additions & 0 deletions
packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -75,6 +75,21 @@
 expect(queryByText(/verifying your request/i)).not.toBeInTheDocument();
 });

 it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {

Check failure
on line 78
in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation
GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3


Check failure
on line 78
in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation
GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3

 const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
 f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
 });
 fixtures.router.currentPath = '/sign-up/protect-check';
 fixtures.router.fullPath = '/sign-up';
 fixtures.router.indexPath = '/sign-up';
 fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string) => path === 'protect-check');

 render(<SignUp />, { wrapper });

 await waitFor(() => expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
 expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
 });

Comment on lines

+78
 to 
+91

@coderabbitaicoderabbitaiBotJul 6, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🩺 Stability & Availability | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Mark this as an expected-to-fail regression test.
Per the PR objectives, this test is intentionally documenting a currently-broken behavior (navigateToFlowStart no-ops when routed through the real SignUp/Route path="protect-check" because indexPath equals the relative currentPath). As written, this is a plain it(...) block, so it will fail in CI once merged. Use Vitest's it.fails (or skip with a tracking-issue comment) so the suite doesn't break until the underlying fix lands.
🔧 Proposed fix
- it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {+ // TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.+ it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️IMPORTANT

Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change

it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
// TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.
it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx`
around lines 78 - 91, This test is documenting a known broken flow, so it should
be marked as expected-to-fail rather than a normal passing test. Update the
SignUpProtectCheck test case in SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx from a plain it(...)
to Vitest’s it.fails(...) (or another explicit expected-failure mechanism) so
the suite does not fail in CI while navigateToFlowStart and the protect-check
route behavior remain unfixed.


 it('runs the SDK challenge with the URL and resource and submits the proof token', async () => {
 const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
 f.startSignUpWithProtectCheck({ sdkUrl: 'https://protect.example.com/v1.js' });
Expand Down
Loading

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression by alexcarpenter · Pull Request #9095 · clerk/javascript · GitHub
Skip to content
test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression#9095

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.

 Sign up for GitHub

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

 Closed

alexcarpenter
wants to merge
1
commit into

from

 Closed


test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression
#9095
 Changes from all commits
Commits

Show all changes


1 commit


Select commit


File filter

Filter by extension
Filter by extension
Conversations

Failed to load comments. 
Loading
Jump to

Jump to file


Failed to load files. 
Loading
 Diff view

 Diff view


15 changes: 15 additions & 0 deletions
packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -75,6 +75,21 @@
 expect(queryByText(/verifying your request/i)).not.toBeInTheDocument();
 });

 it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {

Check failure
on line 78
in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation
GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3


Check failure
on line 78
in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation
GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3

 const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
 f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
 });
 fixtures.router.currentPath = '/sign-up/protect-check';
 fixtures.router.fullPath = '/sign-up';
 fixtures.router.indexPath = '/sign-up';
 fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string) => path === 'protect-check');

 render(<SignUp />, { wrapper });

 await waitFor(() => expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
 expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
 });

Comment on lines

+78
 to 
+91

@coderabbitaicoderabbitaiBotJul 6, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🩺 Stability & Availability | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Mark this as an expected-to-fail regression test.
Per the PR objectives, this test is intentionally documenting a currently-broken behavior (navigateToFlowStart no-ops when routed through the real SignUp/Route path="protect-check" because indexPath equals the relative currentPath). As written, this is a plain it(...) block, so it will fail in CI once merged. Use Vitest's it.fails (or skip with a tracking-issue comment) so the suite doesn't break until the underlying fix lands.
🔧 Proposed fix
- it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {+ // TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.+ it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️IMPORTANT

Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change

it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
// TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.
it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx`
around lines 78 - 91, This test is documenting a known broken flow, so it should
be marked as expected-to-fail rather than a normal passing test. Update the
SignUpProtectCheck test case in SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx from a plain it(...)
to Vitest’s it.fails(...) (or another explicit expected-failure mechanism) so
the suite does not fail in CI while navigateToFlowStart and the protect-check
route behavior remain unfixed.


 it('runs the SDK challenge with the URL and resource and submits the proof token', async () => {
 const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
 f.startSignUpWithProtectCheck({ sdkUrl: 'https://protect.example.com/v1.js' });
Expand Down
Loading

, '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); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression by alexcarpenter · Pull Request #9095 · clerk/javascript · GitHub
Skip to content
test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression#9095

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.

 Sign up for GitHub

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

 Closed

alexcarpenter
wants to merge
1
commit into

from

 Closed


test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression
#9095
 Changes from all commits
Commits

Show all changes


1 commit


Select commit


File filter

Filter by extension
Filter by extension
Conversations

Failed to load comments. 
Loading
Jump to

Jump to file


Failed to load files. 
Loading
 Diff view

 Diff view


15 changes: 15 additions & 0 deletions
packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -75,6 +75,21 @@
 expect(queryByText(/verifying your request/i)).not.toBeInTheDocument();
 });

 it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {

Check failure
on line 78
in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation
GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3


Check failure
on line 78
in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation
GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3

 const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
 f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
 });
 fixtures.router.currentPath = '/sign-up/protect-check';
 fixtures.router.fullPath = '/sign-up';
 fixtures.router.indexPath = '/sign-up';
 fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string) => path === 'protect-check');

 render(<SignUp />, { wrapper });

 await waitFor(() => expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
 expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
 });

Comment on lines

+78
 to 
+91

@coderabbitaicoderabbitaiBotJul 6, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🩺 Stability & Availability | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Mark this as an expected-to-fail regression test.
Per the PR objectives, this test is intentionally documenting a currently-broken behavior (navigateToFlowStart no-ops when routed through the real SignUp/Route path="protect-check" because indexPath equals the relative currentPath). As written, this is a plain it(...) block, so it will fail in CI once merged. Use Vitest's it.fails (or skip with a tracking-issue comment) so the suite doesn't break until the underlying fix lands.
🔧 Proposed fix
- it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {+ // TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.+ it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️IMPORTANT

Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change

it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
// TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.
it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx`
around lines 78 - 91, This test is documenting a known broken flow, so it should
be marked as expected-to-fail rather than a normal passing test. Update the
SignUpProtectCheck test case in SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx from a plain it(...)
to Vitest’s it.fails(...) (or another explicit expected-failure mechanism) so
the suite does not fail in CI while navigateToFlowStart and the protect-check
route behavior remain unfixed.


 it('runs the SDK challenge with the URL and resource and submits the proof token', async () => {
 const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
 f.startSignUpWithProtectCheck({ sdkUrl: 'https://protect.example.com/v1.js' });
Expand Down
Loading

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();
test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression by alexcarpenter · Pull Request #9095 · clerk/javascript · GitHub
Skip to content
test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression#9095

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.

 Sign up for GitHub

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

 Closed

alexcarpenter
wants to merge
1
commit into

from

 Closed


test(ui): add stale protect-check route regression
#9095
 Changes from all commits
Commits

Show all changes


1 commit


Select commit


File filter

Filter by extension
Filter by extension
Conversations

Failed to load comments. 
Loading
Jump to

Jump to file


Failed to load files. 
Loading
 Diff view

 Diff view


15 changes: 15 additions & 0 deletions
packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -75,6 +75,21 @@
 expect(queryByText(/verifying your request/i)).not.toBeInTheDocument();
 });

 it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {

Check failure
on line 78
in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation
GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3


Check failure
on line 78
in packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx

View workflow job for this annotation
GitHub Actions/ Unit Tests (**)

src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx > SignUpProtectCheck > routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start

Error: Test timed out in 5000ms.
If this is a long-running test, pass a timeout value as the last argument or configure it globally with "testTimeout".
❯ src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx:78:3

 const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
 f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
 });
 fixtures.router.currentPath = '/sign-up/protect-check';
 fixtures.router.fullPath = '/sign-up';
 fixtures.router.indexPath = '/sign-up';
 fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string) => path === 'protect-check');

 render(<SignUp />, { wrapper });

 await waitFor(() => expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
 expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
 });

Comment on lines

+78
 to 
+91

@coderabbitaicoderabbitaiBotJul 6, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🩺 Stability & Availability | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Mark this as an expected-to-fail regression test.
Per the PR objectives, this test is intentionally documenting a currently-broken behavior (navigateToFlowStart no-ops when routed through the real SignUp/Route path="protect-check" because indexPath equals the relative currentPath). As written, this is a plain it(...) block, so it will fail in CI once merged. Use Vitest's it.fails (or skip with a tracking-issue comment) so the suite doesn't break until the underlying fix lands.
🔧 Proposed fix
- it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {+ // TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.+ it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start', async () => {
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️IMPORTANT

Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change

it('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
// TODO(`#XXXX`): navigateToFlowStart currently no-ops for routed protect-check visits.
it.fails('routes stale standalone protect-check visits through SignUp routes back to the flow start',async()=>{
const{ wrapper, fixtures }=awaitcreateFixtures(f=>{
f.startSignUpWithEmailAddress();
});
fixtures.router.currentPath='/sign-up/protect-check';
fixtures.router.fullPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.indexPath='/sign-up';
fixtures.router.matches.mockImplementation((path?: string)=>path==='protect-check');
render(<SignUp/>,{ wrapper });
awaitwaitFor(()=>expect(fixtures.router.navigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/sign-up'));
expect(mockExecute).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@packages/ui/src/components/SignUp/__tests__/SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx`
around lines 78 - 91, This test is documenting a known broken flow, so it should
be marked as expected-to-fail rather than a normal passing test. Update the
SignUpProtectCheck test case in SignUpProtectCheck.test.tsx from a plain it(...)
to Vitest’s it.fails(...) (or another explicit expected-failure mechanism) so
the suite does not fail in CI while navigateToFlowStart and the protect-check
route behavior remain unfixed.


 it('runs the SDK challenge with the URL and resource and submits the proof token', async () => {
 const { wrapper, fixtures } = await createFixtures(f => {
 f.startSignUpWithProtectCheck({ sdkUrl: 'https://protect.example.com/v1.js' });
Expand Down
Loading