Update lists in testing.mdx

[Egpereira]

Update lists in testing.mdx

As commented here: #8096 (comment), this PR proposes a change to two lists in the testing.mdx file:

1. Changes the ordered list in the NightwatchJS section to be an unordered list and and changes the wording from "CLI steps" to "CLI commands", since they are not needed in a particular order.
2. Updates the ordered lust in the Playwright section to use the Steps component, since they are actually instructions than only can run one after the other.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
docs	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	May 7, 2024 0:16am

[Egpereira]

@HiDeoo only managed to open the proposal now!

[astrobot-houston]

Lunaria Status Overview

🌕 This pull request will trigger status changes.

Learn more

By default, every PR changing files present in the Lunaria configuration's files property will be considered and trigger status changes accordingly.

You can change this by adding one of the keywords present in the ignoreKeywords property in your Lunaria configuration file in the PR's title (ignoring all files) or by including a tracker directive in the merged commit's description.

Tracked Files

Locale	File	Note
en	guides/testing.mdx	Source changed, localizations will be marked as outdated.

Warnings reference

Icon	Description
🔄️	The source for this localization has been updated since the creation of this pull request, make sure all changes in the source have been applied.

[sarah11918]

This change makes sense! Well spotted!

I think the code blocks will need to be UN-indented, though, because the indentation was because of being inside of an ordered list.

[Egpereira]

This change makes sense! Well spotted!

I think the code blocks will need to be UN-indented, though, because the indentation was because of being inside of an ordered list.

you mean this one?

should I un-indent one tab on the code blocks (they are with currently two, doesn't affect the visual outcome)?

[sarah11918]

Oh, you're right! I was thinking that, but seeing it, it does fit. Thank you!

[sarah11918]

Thank you, this one looks great!

[sarah11918]

Hmm, just noticing that the middle one is viewing the test report. As you indicated in the section below, does this require first running one of the above tests?

I wonder whether we should at least reorder and put viewing the report at the bottom?

[Egpereira]

Hmm, just noticing that the middle one is viewing the test report. As you indicated in the section below, does this require first running one of the above tests?

I wonder whether we should at least reorder and put viewing the report at the bottom?

I see now! It makes sense to me 🤔 What do you think about having the first two steps considered as the same one, with different options, followed by the report one as a second step, similar to the Playwright section? Is it too weird?

I might even suggest a small wording change for the second example (also changed back the phrase before the steps to "CLI steps").

[sarah11918]

I think it's not too weird! At some point we may revisit the page as a whole, but I say for now, your judgement makes sense! 2 steps for running/reporting, then present the other as an alternate.

[Egpereira]

I think it's not too weird! At some point we may revisit the page as a whole, but I say for now, your judgement makes sense! 2 steps for running/reporting, then present the other as an alternate.

Commited the changes as discussed!

[sarah11918]

Looks great, let's do it! 💪