testing
GitHubVitest测试指南,提供运行命令、数据库测试配置及核心原则。指导编写和维护测试,修复失败用例,提升覆盖率,调试测试问题及设置Mock,确保类型检查通过并遵循特定测试规范。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add lobehub/lobehub --skill testing -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "testing",
"description": "Vitest testing guide. Use when writing or updating tests, fixing failing tests, improving coverage, debugging test issues, or setting up mocks.",
"user-invocable": false
}
LobeHub Testing Guide
Quick Reference
Commands:
# Run specific test file
bunx vitest run --silent='passed-only' '[file-path]'
# Database package (client-db, PGlite — default, skips BM25/pg_search)
cd packages/database && bunx vitest run --silent='passed-only' '[file]'
# Database package (server-db, Postgres — BM25/pgvector parity, what CI measures coverage in)
cd packages/database && TEST_SERVER_DB=1 bunx vitest run --silent='passed-only' '[file]'
Never run bun run test - it runs all 3000+ tests (~10 minutes).
Database models/repositories: every new file under
packages/database/src/models/**orsrc/repositories/**ships with a sibling__tests__/<name>.test.tsin the same PR. Use the real DB viagetTestDB()(integration style), guard BM25/full-text-search blocks withdescribe.skipIf(!isServerDB), and always test user-isolation. Seereferences/db-model-test.mdfor setup, schema gotchas, and the client-vs-server-db split.
Test Categories
| Category | Location | Config |
|---|---|---|
| Webapp | src/**/*.test.ts(x) |
vitest.config.ts |
| Packages | packages/*/**/*.test.ts |
packages/*/vitest.config.ts |
| Desktop | apps/desktop/**/*.test.ts |
apps/desktop/vitest.config.ts |
Core Principles
- Prefer
vi.spyOnovervi.mock- More targeted, easier to maintain - Tests must pass type check - Run
bun run type-checkafter writing tests - After 1-2 failed fix attempts, stop and ask for help
- Test behavior, not implementation details
- Regression tests for bug fixes - After fixing a bug, add a regression test that fails before the fix and passes after, to prevent recurrence. Skip pure style/CSS fixes (selector, hover, mask, spacing, color) when the only practical assertion would be source-string matching on the stylesheet — that is not a regression test worth shipping.
- No new component tests - Only update existing React component tests. Complex logic should be extracted into hooks and tested there instead
- All source changes before any test changes - Complete all source file edits first, then update tests in a separate pass. Interleaving disrupts reasoning about the source changes, especially across many files
Basic Test Structure
import { describe, it, expect, vi, beforeEach, afterEach } from 'vitest';
beforeEach(() => {
vi.clearAllMocks();
});
afterEach(() => {
vi.restoreAllMocks();
});
describe('ModuleName', () => {
describe('functionName', () => {
it('should handle normal case', () => {
// Arrange → Act → Assert
});
});
});
Mock Patterns
// ✅ Spy on direct dependencies
vi.spyOn(messageService, 'createMessage').mockResolvedValue('id');
// ✅ Use vi.stubGlobal for browser APIs
vi.stubGlobal('Image', mockImage);
vi.spyOn(URL, 'createObjectURL').mockReturnValue('blob:mock');
// ❌ Avoid mocking entire modules globally
vi.mock('@/services/chat'); // Too broad
UI Library Mocks (@lobehub/ui/base-ui)
Default: do NOT mock @lobehub/ui/base-ui — render the real components.
vitest.config.mts redirects the library's internal MotionProvider to a static
stub (tests/mocks/lobehubUiMotionProvider.tsx), so base-ui components render in
tests without the app-level ConfigProvider. Please wrap your app with <ConfigProvider> (or <MotionProvider>) in a test means that redirect is not in
effect (e.g. a package-local vitest config) — do not fix it by hand-mocking every
component.
When a test genuinely wants simplified DOM, compose the canonical stubs over the real module instead of writing a closed factory (closed factories break whenever the library migrates a component's import path):
vi.mock('@lobehub/ui/base-ui', async (importOriginal) => ({
...(await importOriginal<object>()),
...(await import('~base-ui-stubs')).baseUiStubs,
}));
~base-ui-stubs (tests/mocks/baseUiStubs.tsx) covers ActionIcon / Button /
Text / Tag / Avatar / Alert / toast / confirmModal / createModal with standard
aria semantics. A per-file factory is still fine when assertions need bespoke
testid conventions — but keep it composed over importOriginal so unknown
exports never go missing.
Detailed Guides
See references/ for specific testing scenarios:
- Database Model testing:
references/db-model-test.md - Electron IPC testing:
references/electron-ipc-test.md - Zustand Store Action testing:
references/zustand-store-action-test.md - Agent Runtime E2E testing:
references/agent-runtime-e2e.md - Desktop Controller testing:
references/desktop-controller-test.md
Fixing Failing Tests — Optimize or Delete?
When tests fail due to implementation changes (not bugs), evaluate before blindly fixing:
Keep & Fix (update test data/assertions)
- Behavior tests: Tests that verify what the code does (output, side effects, user-visible behavior). Just update mock data formats or expected values.
- Example: Tool data structure changed from
{ name }to{ function: { name } }→ update mock data - Example: Output format changed from
Current date: YYYY-MM-DDtoCurrent date: YYYY-MM-DD (TZ)→ update expected string
- Example: Tool data structure changed from
Delete (over-specified, low value)
- Param-forwarding tests: Tests that assert exact internal function call arguments (e.g.,
expect(internalFn).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expect.objectContaining({ exact params }))) — these break on every refactor and duplicate what behavior tests already cover. - Implementation-coupled tests: Tests that verify how the code works internally rather than what it produces. If a higher-level test already covers the same behavior, the low-level test adds maintenance cost without coverage gain.
Decision Checklist
- Does the test verify externally observable behavior (API response, DB write, rendered output)? → Keep
- Does the test only verify internal wiring (which function receives which params)? → Check if a behavior test already covers it. If yes → Delete
- Is the same behavior already tested at a higher integration level? → Delete the lower-level duplicate
- Would the test break again on the next routine refactor? → Consider raising to integration level or deleting
When Writing New Tests
- Prefer integration-level assertions (verify final output) over white-box assertions (verify internal calls)
- Use
expect.objectContainingonly for stable, public-facing contracts — not for internal param shapes that change with refactors - Mock at boundaries (DB, network, external services), not between internal modules
Common Issues
- Module pollution: Use
vi.resetModules()when tests fail mysteriously - Mock not working: Check setup position and use
vi.clearAllMocks()in beforeEach - Test data pollution: Clean database state in beforeEach/afterEach
- Async issues: Wrap state changes in
act()for React hooks
Version History
- a06b4e2 Current 2026-08-29 06:01
- 29fe043 2026-08-20 18:34


