MWPW-144683 Article Header Unit Test #44
Conversation
meganthecoder
added
the
trivial
|
Hello, I'm the AEM Code Sync Bot and I will run some actions to deploy your branch and validate page speed.
Commits
|
| export function loadTaxonomy() { | ||
|
|
||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| export function getLinkForTopic() { | ||
| return '#'; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| export function getTaxonomyModule() { | ||
| return true; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To explain:
These are here as mocks for the external milo scripts, as called out as best practice by the community. Before, I've tried to use import maps like we do in milo tests, but they don't work with template strings in dynamic imports. Here, I'm mocking the external scripts by setting milo libs to pull from the localhost mocks folder.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Brandon32 Let me know if you have further questions
|
Not blocking, but I do wonder if this unit test doesn't belong in Milo itself? I understand we are testing the implementation that occurs in our utils.js, but wondering if we could skip some of the mocks by adding the test in milo? Or even what about the test in Milo was inadequate to catch our use case? |
I don't think that tests in milo would adequately cover our use case. The article header block in milo requires a very specific input or else it errors out and the block doesn't build correctly. That's essentially what we're testing here: Does the code in bacom blog utils provide correctly formatted data for the article header block to use? Edit: It's possible that we could avoid mocking milo libs by rewriting |
No objection to the way it's done. Just finding the test interesting, and what it necessitates interesting. "Does the code in bacom blog utils provide correctly formatted data for the article header block to use" is not something I think we've tested for in other consumer repos, and it exposes that the |
Related to: MWPW-144683
Test URLs:
N/A