test: Extract assertion logic from the helpers.js file and add it to an Assertions class.

[cortisiko]

Description

Problem

To address the issue of the helpers.js file containing numerous test actions, and assertions, which can be confusing for newcomers to the framework, one possible solution is to refactor the code by extracting the assertions into a separate assertion class. This will make it easier to identify and use the assertions within e2e the tests.

Solution

Create a new file called assertions.js or any appropriate name for the assertion class. The goal here is to remove the assertions in these lines of code: https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile/blob/main/e2e/helpers.js#L121#L164 to its own assertion class.

In the assertions.js file, define a class that contains reusable assertion methods.

Important: The introduced code will remain unused. This pull request is 3 of 3 PRs, which involves cleaning up the helpers.js file.

Screenshots/Recordings

If applicable, add screenshots and/or recordings to visualize the before and after of your change.

Before

[screenshot]

After

[screenshot]

Related issues

Fixes #???

Pre-merge author checklist

• I’ve followed MetaMask Coding Standards.
• I've clearly explained:
  • What problem this PR is solving.
  • How this problem was solved.
  • How reviewers can test my changes.
• I’ve indicated what issue this PR is linked to: Fixes #???
• I’ve included tests if applicable.
• I’ve documented any added code.
• I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see labeling guidelines).
• I’ve properly set the pull request status:
  • In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft".
  • In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft".

Pre-merge reviewer checklist

• I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed).
• I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots.

[SamuelSalas]

LGTM

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (b3f0e31) 34.62% compared to head (120dc41) 34.61%.
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7512      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   34.62%   34.61%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1019     1019              
  Lines       27192    27193       +1     
  Branches     2217     2218       +1     
==========================================
- Hits         9414     9413       -1     
- Misses      17287    17289       +2     
  Partials      491      491              

see 5 files with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[leotm]

lgtm

[cortisiko]

added your suggestions @leotm ! please review it one more time.

[chrisleewilcox]

Can we update one test file that uses one of the assertions in the new file to show how/it works?

[sonarcloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
No Duplication information

[cortisiko]

@chrisleewilcox I didn't want to merge the example into this PR because it would have required time to restructure a few pages. I branched off this branch and created an example. See example here: main...detox/example-pom#diff-1eb196708d872982bf1ba97d28e5c5a0fa11db2535e052c32e60139bf422044dR30

If it makes sense to you, can you review and approve this PR