Best Way To Test Input Value In Dom-Testing-Library Or React-Testing-Library

Introduction

Sure, here is your SEO optimized sentence: To ensure optimal performance in DOM or React Testing Library, testing input values is crucial, utilizing methods like ‘getByLabelText’ and ‘fireEvent’ can provide accurate results, allowing developers to evaluate the efficiency of interfaces and ensure top-notch user experiences.

Quick Summary

When testing input value in DOM Testing Library or React Testing Library, there are several best practices to consider.

Let’s start by examining the key elements related to this subject matter:

With these key parts in mind, let’s further elaborate on their usage:

getByLabelText: By utilizing getByLabelText method, it simplifies the process of accessing particular inputs. It increases the compatibility of tests with changes in code by focusing on accessibility, not implementation.

const inputNode = screen.getByLabelText('Phone Number:');

fireEvent: Changes in input value are tested using the fireEvent.change, which simulates real-world scenarios better.

fireEvent.change(inputNode, { target: { value: '1234567890' } });

toBeInTheDocument: By taking advantage of Jest-DOM’s custom matchers, like toBeInTheDocument, assertions can be expressive and logical.

expect(inputNode).toBeInTheDocument();

waitFor: To handle asynchronous updates that might derived from the fireEvent actions, utilize the waitFor utility from the library. This ensures that your code has properly updated the DOM before executing further tests.

await waitFor(() => {
  expect(screen.getByDisplayValue(/1234567890/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
});

Salomon Skaff, a software development expert stated, “The best test isn’t convoluted in trying to check every single function; it’s the one that checks whether the software behaves as expected from a user’s perspective.”. Considering this, these methods fall in line with the core philosophy of Testing Library – make your tests resemble the way software is used as closely as possible.

Understanding Dom-Testing-Library and React-Testing-Library

DOM-Testing-Library is a robust, Lightweight solution for testing web pages by querying and interacting with DOM nodes. Although not tied to any framework, it integrates seamlessly with several such as React, Vue, or Angular.[1]

On the other hand, React-Testing-Library is a simple and complete set of React DOM testing utilities that inspire good testing practices – purposely avoiding implementation details of the components – encouraging usage in a way that resembles actual user interaction.[2]

To test input values, we need to simulate user interactions, including typing into the input field and validating the changes reflected. Here’s how you can do this using both libraries:

Firstly, ensure to import all required modules from the respective libraries. Using jest for the test execution, your structure should follow this pattern:

  import { render, fireEvent } from '@testing-library/react';
  import { screen } from '@testing-library/dom';
  import SomeComponent from './SomeComponent'; 

After rendering the component, use fireEvent to simulate writing text to an input:

test('inputs the correct value', () => {
    render();

    // Use the `input` role and the placeholder text to find the input element
    const input = screen.getByRole('input', { name: /username/i });

    // Emulates typing into the input field
    fireEvent.change(input, { target: {value: 'testuser'} });

    // Validates that the input value has changed
    expect(input.value).toBe('testuser');
}); 

Note that the getByRole function retrieves elements by their accessibility role. This is consistent with testing practices recommended by these libraries to find elements in a way meaningful to users.

As Bill Gates once said, “The computer was born to solve problems that did not exist before.” Emphasizing on this quote, DOM-Testing-Library and React-Testing-Library can deal with the problem of rigorously testing an application’s UI in a manner that closely resembles real user interactions, drastically improving the quality of web applications.

[3] is a great online resource to dive deeper into accessible queries and unique roles provided by these libraries to make our tests more effective.

Methods for Testing Input Value in Dom-Testing-Library

Let’s explore some of those recommended ways you can test input value with these amazing tools:

User Events Triggering

User events like texting and clicking can be simulated using

fireEvent

. It is widely recognized due to its consistency of testing user behaviour just as it occurs naturally in the DOM.

Consider this code snippet:

jsx
import { render, fireEvent } from ‘@testing-library/react’

it(‘allows the user to add text in input’, () => {
const { getByRole } = render()
const input = getByRole(‘textbox’)
fireEvent.change(input, { target: { value: ‘TypeScript’ } })
expect(input.value).toBe(‘TypeScript’)
})

We employ the method

getByRole('textbox')

for selecting the input and then trigger a change event using

fireEvent

.

Using The UserEvent API

The

userEvent

API is another elegant way to handle DOM operations. It mimics real interactions more accurately than

fireEvent

.

Following shows an example:

jsx
import { render, screen } from ‘@testing-library/react’
import userEvent from ‘@testing-library/user-event’

it(‘allows the user to add text in input’, () => {
render()
const input = screen.getByRole(‘textbox’)
userEvent.type(input, ‘TypeScript’)
expect(input).toHaveValue(‘TypeScript’)
})

Here, we import

userEvent

and use the

.type()

function to simulate text input.

The waitFor Function for Handling Async Updates>

Handling async updates could pose a challenge. This is where the

waitFor

function comes in.

Here’s how:

jsx
import { render, screen, waitFor } from ‘@testing-library/react’
import userEvent from ‘@testing-library/user-event’

it(‘allows the user to add text in input asynchronously’, async () => {
render()
const input = screen.getByRole(‘textbox’)
userEvent.type(input, ‘TypeScript’)
await waitFor(() => {
expect(input).toHaveValue(‘TypeScript’)
})
})

In this case,

waitFor

is used to halt test operation until our assertion becomes true.

To quote one of our industry’s leaders, Martin Fowler, “Whenever you are tempted to type something into a print statement or a debugger expression, write it as a test instead.”
Testing indeed gives any application the integrity it needs to thrive amidst various scenarios of user interaction. Therefore, effective usage of these methods can lead to robust, error-free applications.

Approaches to Validating Input Values in React-Testing Library

Testing User Behaviour with fireEvent

const { getByLabelText, fireEvent } = render(
   
);

fireEvent.change(getByLabelText('test input'), {
   target: {value: 'test value'},
});

expect(getByLabelText('test input').value).toBe('test value');

This method mimics the experiences your users go through when interacting with your application. By importing and setting an initial input field’s value with the

fireEvent.change()

method from React-Testing Library, you’re able to simulate the action of a user typing text into the input field. Verifying the input value then becomes a matter of assessing if the input field contains the newly expected value by utilizing an assertion like

expect().toBe()

.

UserEvent Library for Improved Simulation

You may improve simulation of real life user interaction with the UserEvent library, which is part of the Testing Library family. An alternate approach to the previous could look like this:

import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event';

const { getByLabelText } = render(
   
);

userEvent.type(getByLabelText('test input'), 'test value');

expect(getByLabelText('test input').value).toBe('test value');

Here, the

userEvent.type()

function is used in place of

fireEvent.change()

. The UserEvent library provides a more realistic simulation and comprehensive set of user interactions compared to fireEvent.

In the words of Martin Fowler: “Whenever you are tempted to type something into a print statement or a debugger expression, write it as a test instead.”. This embodies the spirit of React Testing Library’s philosophy. By focusing on testing from the user’s perspective with realistic input simulations, you enable yourself to create an efficient, robust, and user-centered codebase.

Tips for Optimizing Your Tests with Dom or React Testing Libraries

Optimizing Your Tests with DOM or React Testing Libraries: Focusing on Input Values

The React community’s testing tooling has evolved over the years, and currently, it manifests in a suite comprising of Jest, the DOM-Testing-Library, and its extension, the React-Testing-Library. One crucial aspect involved in these libraries tests is asserting the values of inputs. This article audits key strategies for optimizing this kind of testing.

1. Targeting Input Elements Explicitly:
Frequently, testers resort to querying by input type when retrieving an element:

getByLabelText('Name:')

However, a more effective strategy would involve employing queries that stress accessibility, such as labels and roles, yielding more robust and maintainable tests.

2. Harnessing fireEvent Method:
React-Testing-Library offers the

fireEvent

function to simulate user’s interactions with the UI. The method attributing value to an input plays out thus:

fireEvent.change(screen.getByLabelText('Name:'), {
  target: {value: 'John Doe'},
})

This code snippet unveils that the fireEvent.change method mimics the behavior of a real user accurately, applying changes directly on the target input element.

Consider employing the

userEvent

library for even more realistic events. As [Kent C. Dodds](https://kentcdodds.com/blog/common-mistakes-with-react-testing-library) stated, “If you can use it, then you should.” Offering synchronous events, it leads to less flaky and more feasible-to-trace outcomes.

3. Inclusive Assertion:
The crux of asserting an input value doesn’t revolve around the simplicity of the assertion itself, but on its implication for user interaction. This perspective challenges the tester to consider, assess and consolidate these implications into a comprehensive assertion strategy.

For example:

expect(screen.getByLabelText('Name:')).toHaveValue('John Doe')

Furthermore, reaching for

jest-dom

assertions enhances readability and error messages. Tapping into it transforms the snippet above to:

expect(screen.getByLabelText('Name:')).toBeInTheDocument()
expect(screen.getByLabelText('Name:')).toHaveValue('John Doe')

4. Utilizing Data Test IDs Sparingly:
While data-test-id attributes can aid in locating elements, they divert from simulating how users interact with an application. They should only serve as last resorts while more determinative alternatives like labels, text, and roles remain unattainable.

Remember, as Martin Fowler emphasized, “[The tests we write](https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TestPyramid.html) are not just for finding bugs or avoiding regression. They also provide an executable specification of the system’s behavior…”

Conclusively, the optimization techniques analyzed so far directs towards one pivotal goal: engineering tests that appear less to machine judgments – remaining comprehensible, maintainable, consistent and invariably valuing the end-user’s experience at their apex.

Conclusion

To validate input values in Dom-Testing-Library or React-Testing-Library, the primary approach involves employing robust testing methods and assertions. DOM Testing Library is a highly scalable option for an array of applications, offering high-level abstractions that facilitate superior accessibility.

The getbyRole function in this library allows pinpointing input elements by their role rather than test IDs, paving the way for more functional and accessible code. Moreover, the advantageous ‘toHaveValue’ assertion aids in validating input values effectively.

Take this example into account:

{`
    const { getByRole } = render(
      
    );

    const inputElement = getByRole('textbox');
    expect(inputElement).toHaveValue('Initial Value');
`}

This code snippet showcases how straightforward it is to evaluate an input value in the DOM Testing Library.

In contrast, React Testing Library provides an abstraction over React’s underlying mechanics. It focuses on replicating how end-users would interact with your application, rather than programming implementation details.(source)

For instance:

{`
    import { render, fireEvent } from '@testing-library/react';

    ...

    const { getByLabelText } = render();
    const input = getByLabelText('input');

    fireEvent.change(input, { target: { value: 'New Input Value' } });
    expect(input.value).toBe('New Input Value');
`}

This code demonstrates how the fireEvent change event changes the input value and validates it using React Testing Library.

Dave Ceddia succinctly summarizes this approach, “Write tests. Not too many. Mostly integration.”(source) This notion reinforces the importance of comprehensive testing; however, attention must be devoted to ensure that these tests capture the essential user interactions that your scripts and applications facilitate.

Performing input value testing in both libraries greatly bolsters code robustness, delivering enhanced reliability for your projects. The best method always rests on your unique project requirements- irrespective of whether that involves looking for straightforward syntax (as provided by DOM Testing Library) or favoring more human-centric testing (a key feature of the React Testing Library).

Related

• Jest Wont Transform The Module – Syntaxerror: Cannot Use Import Statement Outside A Module
• Typeerror: Cannot Read Properties Of Undefined (Reading Prototype) React Typescript + Express