PhoenixTest

PhoenixTest provides a unified way of writing feature tests -- regardless of whether you're testing LiveView pages or static (non-LiveView) pages.

It also handles navigation between LiveView and static pages seamlessly. So, you don't have to worry about what type of page you're visiting. Just write the tests from the user's perspective.

Thus, you can test a flow going from static to LiveView pages and back without having to worry about the underlying implementation.

This is a sample flow:

test "admin can create a user", %{conn: conn} do
  conn
  |> visit("/")
  |> click_link("Users")
  |> fill_in("Name", with: "Aragorn")
  |> click_button("Create")
  |> assert_has(".user", text: "Aragorn")
end

Note that PhoenixTest does not handle JavaScript. If you're looking for something that supports JavaScript, take a look at Wallaby.

For full documentation, take a look at PhoenixTest docs.

Why PhoenixTest?

A unified way of writing feature tests

With the advent of LiveView, I find myself writing less and less JavaScript.

Sure, there are sprinkles of it here and there, and there’s always the occasional need for something more.

But for the most part:

• If I’m going to build a page that needs interactivity, I use LiveView.
• If I’m going to write a static page, I use regular controllers + views/HTML modules.

The problem is that LiveView pages and static pages have vastly different testing strategies.

If we use LiveView, we have a good set of helpers.

{:ok, view, _html} = live(conn, ~p"/")

html =
  view
  |> element("#greet-guest")
  |> render_click()

assert html =~ "Hello, guest!"

But if we're testing a static page, we have to resort to controller testing:

conn = get(conn, ~p"/greet_page")

assert html_response(conn, 200) =~ "Hello, guest!"

That means we don’t have ways of interacting with static pages at all!

What if we want to submit a form or click a link? And what if a click takes us from a LiveView to a static view or vice versa?

Instead, I'd like to have a unified way of testing Phoenix apps -- regardless of whether we're testing LiveView pages or static pages.

Improved assertions

And then there's the problem of assertions.

Because LiveView and controller tests use =~ for assertions, the error messages aren't very helpful when assertions fail.

After all, we’re just comparing two blobs of text – and trust me, HTML pages can get very large and hard to read as a blob of text in your terminal.

LiveView tries to help with its has_element?/3 helper, which allows us to target elements by CSS selectors and text.

Unfortunately, it still doesn't provide the best errors.

has_element?/3 only tells us what was passed into the function. It doesn't give us a clue as to what else might've been on the page – maybe we just made a small typo and we have no idea!

And that's where PhoenixTest comes in! A unified way of writing feature tests and improved assertions where they're needed!

What do you mean by "static" pages?

We use the term static as compared to LiveView pages. Thus, in PhoenixTest's terminology static pages are what is typically known as dynamic, server-rendered pages -- pages that were normal prior to the advent of LiveView and which are sometimes called "dead" views. Thus, we do not mean static in the sense that static-site generators (such as Jekyll, Gatsby, etc.) mean it.

Made with ❤️ by German Velasco