Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

component-testing

Use when writing or changing any React component - React Testing Library tests are behavior-focused (byRole first), use user-event, assert on accessible output, one behavior per test, and run in npm test

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md4.6 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Component Testing (React Testing Library)

Overview

A component test that queries by data-testid or asserts on internal state proves the implementation didn't change, not that the component works for a user. React Testing Library tests must exercise the component the way a user (and a screen reader) does: find things by role/label/text, interact with them, and assert on what actually rendered.

Core principle: Test behavior, not implementation. If a refactor that keeps the same user-facing behavior breaks the test, the test is coupled to the wrong thing.

Rules

  • Query priority: byRole first. Prefer getByRole (with { name: ... }) over byLabelText/byText, and both over byTestId. byTestId is a last resort for a node with no accessible role or text — reach for it only when nothing else identifies the element, and treat its presence as a smell worth a follow-up (usually a missing label/role, per accessibility-basics).
  • user-event over fireEvent. fireEvent.click fires one DOM event; userEvent.click simulates the real sequence of events a browser produces (focus, pointer, keyboard) and catches bugs fireEvent cannot (e.g. a control that only works because it happens to be focused). Always await userEvent.setup() / await user.click(...).
  • Assert on accessible, user-visible output. Check rendered text, roles, aria-* state (aria-expanded, aria-invalid, aria-disabled), and focus — not component internals, prop values, or CSS class names.
  • One behavior per test. A test named for the behavior it proves ("shows a validation error when the field is left empty"), not "renders correctly". Multiple assertions are fine as long as they all check the same behavior; a second, unrelated behavior gets its own test.
  • No implementation-detail mocking. Mock the network/API boundary (MSW or the API client module), never a child component or a hook's internals just to make the test pass — that tests the mock, not the component.
  • Wire it into npm test. New component test files must run under the project's existing npm test script (Vitest/Jest) with no extra flags — a suite that only runs when invoked by hand is not part of the pipeline (see ci-cd-pipeline-authoring).
  • TDD still applies (see tdd-workflow): write the test against the intended behavior first, watch it fail, then implement.

Worked Example

// ❌ implementation-coupled: breaks on any internal refactor, proves nothing
// about what the user sees
test("renders correctly", () => {
  render(<LoginForm />);
  expect(screen.getByTestId("submit-btn")).toBeInTheDocument();
});

// ✅ behavior-focused: fails only when the real user-facing behavior breaks
test("shows a validation error when submitting with an empty email", async () => {
  const user = userEvent.setup();
  render(<LoginForm />);

  await user.click(screen.getByRole("button", { name: /sign in/i }));

  expect(screen.getByRole("alert")).toHaveTextContent(/email is required/i);
  expect(screen.getByRole("textbox", { name: /email/i })).toHaveAttribute("aria-invalid", "true");
});

The second test finds the button and field the way a user would (by their accessible name), drives them with user-event, and asserts on what actually appears — it stays green through any internal rewrite that keeps this behavior.

Common Mistakes

  • Querying by data-testid when a role/label query would work — usually a sign the component is missing an accessible name in the first place.
  • Using fireEvent for anything a real user would do with a mouse or keyboard.
  • One giant test asserting the whole component "renders correctly" instead of named tests per behavior.
  • Snapshot tests as the only coverage — they fail on any markup change, meaningful or not, and don't document behavior.
  • Mocking a child component to isolate the parent, hiding real integration bugs.
  • A new *.test.tsx file that npm test never picks up (wrong glob, wrong location) — decoration, not a gate.

Red Flags

  • screen.getByTestId(...) with no comment on why no role/label query worked.
  • fireEvent anywhere a user-event equivalent exists.
  • A test file with only snapshot assertions.
  • Assertions on a component's props/state instead of its rendered output.
  • Test suite green locally but npm test in CI never runs the new file.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when writing acceptance criteria for a task - express each as an observable Given/When/Then that QA can execute, including negative cases

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

Use when the diff adds or changes an endpoint, resolver, RPC, job or query that takes an object id, a role check, a request binding or a tenant filter - BOLA/IDOR, function-level authorization, mass assignment and tenant scoping

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

Use on every UI change - semantic HTML, labels for controls, keyboard-navigable dialogs/menus, visible focus, and never color as the only signal

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

Use when a task changes any screen, form, dialog, menu or control - Lighthouse/axe scan of the changed screens, a keyboard walk, and the thresholds that fail a task

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

How to work a task returned with review, QA or UAT findings. Use when a task is in need_revision or PR review comments are in your context.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

Use when the repository keeps its alerting in code, or a person asks for alerts outside TaskTrooper - PrometheusRule YAML, a Cloud Monitoring alert policy in Terraform, a Datadog monitor, each routed to TaskTrooper's alert ingest URL so it opens an incident here

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

See all skills by makifbaysal

Report a problem with this skill