Cypress tech memo, re: test-e2e-deployment

[andrew-jameson]

Summary of Changes

Provide a brief summary of changes
Pull request relates to #3141
Additionally, has some minor developer quality of life improvements:

1. Task to run cypress
2. Reduce CircleCI workflows kicked off by a commit to existing PR

How to Test

N/A

Deliverables

More details on how deliverables herein are assessed included here.

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

• N/A

Deliverable 2: Tested Code

• Are all areas of code introduced in this PR meaningfully tested?
  • If this PR introduces backend code changes, are they meaningfully tested?
  • If this PR introduces frontend code changes, are they meaningfully tested?
• Are code coverage minimums met?
  • Frontend coverage: [insert coverage %] (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)
  • Backend coverage: [insert coverage %] (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)

Deliverable 3: Properly Styled Code

• Are backend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• Are frontend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• Are code maintainability principles being followed?

Deliverable 4: Accessible

• Does this PR complete the epic?
• Are links included to any other gov-approved PRs associated with epic?
• Does PR include documentation for Raft's a11y review?
• Did automated and manual testing with iamjolly and ttran-hub using Accessibility Insights reveal any errors introduced in this PR?

Deliverable 5: Deployed

• Was the code successfully deployed via automated CircleCI process to development on Cloud.gov?

Deliverable 6: Documented

• Does this PR provide background for why coding decisions were made?
• If this PR introduces backend code, is that code easy to understand and sufficiently documented, both inline and overall?
• If this PR introduces frontend code, is that code easy to understand and sufficiently documented, both inline and overall?
• If this PR introduces dependencies, are their licenses documented?
• Can reviewer explain and take ownership of these elements presented in this code review?

Deliverable 7: Secure

• Does the OWASP Scan pass on CircleCI?
• Do manual code review and manual testing detect any new security issues?
• If new issues detected, is investigation and/or remediation plan documented?

Deliverable 8: User Research

Research product(s) clearly articulate(s):

• the purpose of the research
• methods used to conduct the research
• who participated in the research
• what was tested and how
• impact of research on TDP
• (if applicable) final design mockups produced for TDP development

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.59%. Comparing base (8f5a452) to head (62690eb).
Report is 3 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #3196   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    91.59%   91.59%           
========================================
  Files          297      297           
  Lines         8509     8509           
  Branches       621      621           
========================================
  Hits          7794     7794           
  Misses         601      601           
  Partials       114      114           

Flag	Coverage Δ
dev-backend	91.42% <ø> (ø)
dev-frontend	92.82% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 7247a50...62690eb. Read the comment docs.

[elipe17]

Could you provide an example of what level of abstraction your are driving towards?

[elipe17]

Or is that what the ### Abstracted utility authentication functions section is covering?

[andrew-jameson]

The abstracted section below is for the JavaScript side. I will revise this section to be more verbose on how I imagine we might restructure the Gherkin. Reading through it, especially without Jan's clearing of cookies, one scenario needed to be run before another, etc. Assuming we get the setup/teardown, these scenarios can be independent. I'll include psuedo-code examples as we discussed Friday I think on how tech memos ought to look.

[jtimpe]

we might need to update cypress and/or cypress-cucumber-preprocessor to get these (i couldn't get them to work in the 5 minutes i spent messing with it), but we should have BeforeAll and BeforeEach hooks available

https://github.com/badeball/cypress-cucumber-preprocessor/blob/master/docs/cucumber-basics.md#hooks

[lhuxraft]

12/4: Andrew to re-request reviews

[elipe17]

Looking good. Thanks for adding the extra steps!

[raftmsohani]

LGTM!