test: Improve output inspection button selector reliability

[Cristhianzl]

This pull request updates the test logic for interacting with the output inspection button in the run-flow.spec.ts test suite. The main change improves the reliability of the test by waiting for the output inspection button to appear using a partial match on its data-testid, rather than clicking a static icon.

Test reliability improvement:

• Updated the test to wait for and click the output inspection button using a partial match on data-testid, instead of directly clicking the icon-TextSearchIcon element. This makes the test more robust against UI changes.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Enhanced test interactions for output inspection functionality and improved test formatting consistency across test suites.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto incremental reviews are disabled on this repository.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Walkthrough

The changes modify two test files in the frontend E2E test suite. One test updates its interaction pattern to include a readiness check before engaging with output inspection controls. The other test file undergoes formatting and indentation adjustments without functional modifications.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Test Logic Updates src/frontend/tests/core/features/run-flow.spec.ts	Replaces direct TextSearchIcon click with a sequence that waits for an element with data-testid starting with "output-inspection-" before clicking, introducing a readiness check.
Test Formatting Adjustments src/frontend/tests/core/regression/generalBugs-shard-5.spec.ts	Indentation and spacing adjustments; no functional changes to test logic, assertions, or selectors.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes

• run-flow.spec.ts — Verify the new wait-and-click pattern correctly targets the output inspection element and doesn't introduce timing issues or missed interactions.

Suggested reviewers

• lucaseduoli
• ogabrielluiz

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Excessive Mock Usage Warning	❓ Inconclusive	Test files referenced in PR summary are not accessible in current repository, preventing direct assessment of mock usage patterns.	Provide access to the actual test files or ensure the src/frontend/tests/ directory structure is available for mock usage analysis.

✅ Passed checks (6 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: improving the reliability of the output inspection button selector in tests by replacing a direct icon click with a more robust element matching approach.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Test Coverage For New Implementations	✅ Passed	PR modifies existing test files to improve reliability without introducing new implementations requiring test coverage.
Test Quality And Coverage	✅ Passed	Pull request demonstrates good test quality with Playwright E2E tests validating actual functionality, proper async patterns, concrete assertions on output values, and selector reliability improvements.
Test File Naming And Structure	✅ Passed	Test files follow professional naming conventions and structural standards with proper Playwright setup, descriptive test names, and sophisticated error monitoring.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[github-actions]

Frontend Unit Test Coverage Report

Coverage Summary

Lines	Statements	Branches	Functions
	15.24% (4188/27479)	8.46% (1778/20993)	9.57% (579/6049)

Unit Test Results

Tests	Skipped	Failures	Errors	Time
1638	0 💤	0 ❌	0 🔥	20.493s ⏱️

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 32.38%. Comparing base (96590e8) to head (c1f65ee).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (40.04%) is below the target coverage (60.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #10757      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   32.40%   32.38%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files        1368     1368              
  Lines       63412    63412              
  Branches     9373     9373              
==========================================
- Hits        20551    20537      -14     
- Misses      41829    41843      +14     
  Partials     1032     1032              

Flag	Coverage Δ
frontend	14.08% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
see 6 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[lucaseduoli]

LGTM!