Feature - Implement end-to-end (e2e) testing to Devpedia

[KC900201]

Description

• After the unit testing of the existing components is implemented, we can implement end-to-end testing to verify the website's workflow from start to finish. Below are the procedures proposed for the implementation:

• Install third-party library (exp. Playwright, Cypress) for the e2e testing implementation

• Construct test cases for the required functions' verification in the project

• Ensure testing is conducted across all browser platforms

Expected behaviour

• e2e testing can be implemented as a template for future features introduced in the project

Screenshots

• (WIP)

[KC900201]

@Buzzpy,
cc: @RayMathew

Please share your thought for this new feature. I'll start working on it once it's approved

[RayMathew]

Hey folks. Happy New Year :)

I have mixed feelings about this.

Pro:
It's always good to have tests in place, it helps catch bugs earlier and prevents a bad experience for users.

Con:

1. I feel it's a little premature to have e2e testing for a website whose functionality is relatively simple - we search for terms, read them, and click on the links. In my previous company we had e2e testing because it would take 2 hours to manually test all the user flows.
2. Adding tests also means you have the additional responsibility of ensuring all the tests are up to date when you make changes. It would have to be worth the extra effort. And as said in point 1, I don't yet see the value in it. I think the user flow is simple enough to manually test it.

I'd like to hear counterpoints to my thinking.

[Buzzpy]

Howdy! Happy New Year to you too!
Thanks for the suggestion + feedback. Please allow me 4-5 days to get back to this.

Have a great week!

[KC900201]

Hi @Buzzpy @RayMathew,

Thanks for the wonderful suggestions.

Con:

1. I feel it's a little premature to have e2e testing for a website whose functionality is relatively simple - we search for terms, read them, and click on the links. In my previous company we had e2e testing because it would take 2 hours to manually test all the user flows.
2. Adding tests also means you have the additional responsibility of ensuring all the tests are up to date when you make changes. It would have to be worth the extra effort. And as said in point 1, I don't yet see the value in it. I think the user flow is simple enough to manually test it.

Come to think of it, I have similar opinion with @RayMathew on (1) as the current UI/UX flow for the project is very simple without much complexity, with most of the terms are added manually based on the user feedback. Until a refining or proposed improvement for the project is done, we can put this on hold.

As for (2), I believe that's the expected responsibility of the developer to ensure the test criteria are kept up-to-date to align with the requirements of the project. The skillset and the experience of the developer would be improved in the long run as long as the standards are ensured.