test: add security exceptions functional test #1501
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request updates localization files to correct pluralization and add a security prefix for exception-related terms in English and French. It adjusts the conditional date formatting logic to include the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
nas-tabchiche
changed the title
Mohamed-Hacene
requested review from
nas-tabchiche,
eric-intuitem and
ab-smith
and removed request for
nas-tabchiche
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
frontend/tests/utils/test-utils.ts (1)
603-620: Consider using more realistic test dates.The implementation follows the established pattern, but the expiration dates are set to year 2100, which might not effectively test date-related edge cases or realistic scenarios.
Consider using dates closer to the present, similar to other test cases in the codebase. For example:
- expiration_date: '2100-01-01', + expiration_date: '2025-01-01', - expiration_date: '2100-12-31' + expiration_date: '2025-12-31'
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
frontend/messages/en.json(2 hunks)frontend/messages/fr.json(1 hunks)frontend/src/lib/components/DetailView/DetailView.svelte(1 hunks)frontend/src/lib/components/Forms/ModelForm/SecurityExceptionForm.svelte(1 hunks)frontend/tests/functional/user-route.test.ts(1 hunks)frontend/tests/utils/form-content.ts(1 hunks)frontend/tests/utils/test-data.ts(10 hunks)frontend/tests/utils/test-utils.ts(5 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- frontend/messages/fr.json
- frontend/messages/en.json
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (1)
frontend/src/lib/components/Forms/ModelForm/SecurityExceptionForm.svelte (1)
Learnt from: nas-tabchiche
PR: intuitem/ciso-assistant-community#1486
File: frontend/src/lib/components/Forms/ModelForm/SecurityExceptionForm.svelte:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-02-13T11:07:39.687Z
Learning: Form validation constraints for components should be defined in zod schemas located in `$lib/schemas.ts` rather than directly in the form components.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (6)
- GitHub Check: enterprise-startup-docker-compose-test
- GitHub Check: startup-functional-test (3.12)
- GitHub Check: enterprise-startup-functional-test (3.12)
- GitHub Check: functional-tests (3.12, chromium)
- GitHub Check: startup-docker-compose-test
- GitHub Check: enterprise-functional-tests (3.12, chromium)
🔇 Additional comments (12)
frontend/src/lib/components/Forms/ModelForm/SecurityExceptionForm.svelte (2)
43-43: LGTM! Label updated to reflect plural form.The label change from
m.owner()tom.owners()correctly reflects that multiple owners can be selected.
47-54: LGTM! Approver field enhancements improve UX.The changes to the approver field are well-thought-out:
- The query now correctly filters for users with approver permissions
- Making the field nullable allows for draft states
- Added help text improves user understanding
frontend/tests/utils/form-content.ts (1)
79-83: LGTM! Simplified value access pattern.The removal of
.valueproperty access simplifies the code and makes it more maintainable.frontend/tests/utils/test-data.ts (5)
14-14: LGTM! Added test data for security exceptions.The
securityExceptionNamefollows the consistent naming pattern used for other test data.
41-41: LGTM! Analyst role permissions are appropriate.The analyst role receives full CRUD permissions for security exceptions, which is appropriate for their role.
Also applies to: 58-59, 74-75, 100-101
132-133: LGTM! Reader role has appropriate limited access.The reader role only receives view permissions, which is appropriate for their role.
140-141: LGTM! Domain manager permissions are appropriate.The domain manager role receives full CRUD permissions, which is appropriate for their management role.
Also applies to: 156-157, 175-176
246-247: LGTM! Approver role has view-only access.The approver role appropriately receives only view permissions for security exceptions.
frontend/tests/functional/user-route.test.ts (1)
120-135: LGTM! Comprehensive test coverage for security exception creation.The test step:
- Properly validates navigation
- Tests creation with all required fields
- Uses realistic test data
- Follows the established pattern of other test steps
frontend/src/lib/components/DetailView/DetailView.svelte (1)
330-330: LGTM!The addition of
expiration_dateto the list of date fields is consistent with the broader context of security exception management and ensures proper date formatting.frontend/tests/utils/test-utils.ts (2)
33-33: LGTM!The addition of
securityExceptionsPageto theFixturestype is consistent with the type definitions of other pages.
252-263: LGTM!The implementation of
securityExceptionsPagefollows the established pattern and includes all necessary form fields for security exceptions.
Mohamed-Hacene
removed request for
eric-intuitem,
ab-smith and
nas-tabchiche
…ns' of github.com:intuitem/ciso-assistant-community into test/security-exceptions
Mohamed-Hacene
requested review from
ab-smith,
nas-tabchiche and
eric-intuitem
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
frontend/tests/utils/test-utils.ts (1)
604-623: Consider using more realistic test dates.The implementation is well-structured, but the expiration dates (2100-01-01 and 2100-12-31) are set too far in the future. Consider using dates that are closer to the present to better test date-related edge cases and validations.
- expiration_date: '2100-01-01', + expiration_date: '2025-01-01', - expiration_date: '2100-12-31' + expiration_date: '2025-12-31'
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
frontend/tests/utils/form-content.ts(2 hunks)frontend/tests/utils/test-utils.ts(5 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- frontend/tests/utils/form-content.ts
🔇 Additional comments (3)
frontend/tests/utils/test-utils.ts (3)
33-33: LGTM!The type definition for
securityExceptionsPagefollows the established pattern and maintains consistency with other page types.
70-70: LGTM!The fixture registration maintains alphabetical ordering and follows the established pattern.
Also applies to: 90-90
252-264: LGTM!The fixture implementation is well-structured with appropriate form fields and types. The path and display name are consistent with the feature's purpose.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
New Features