mirror of
https://github.com/taylanbakircioglu/haproxy-openmanager.git
synced 2026-09-16 23:55:13 +00:00
test(acme): drive the certificate wizard to pin multi-account account resolution
Renders the real component and walks it through all three wizard steps, because the bug these cover was invisible to any unit test: it only appeared once the wizard advanced PAST the step that owns the account Select, since Form.useWatch reports only currently-rendered fields. Assertions describe behaviour rather than markup - the primary evidence is the POST body (account_id paired with challenge_type), compared against a fixture whose DNS-01 account is deliberately both the lower id and the older account, which is the exact shape that made the UI default and the backend default disagree. Verified by running the suite against the pre-fix component: the picked-account test reports challenge_type "dns-01" where "http-01" is expected, the Review test shows "Active (dns@example.com) / Challenge Method: DNS-01 / DNS provider: godaddy" for a chosen HTTP-01 account - the reported symptom reproduced - and the wildcard-guard test finds Submit enabled. Four fail, one passes: the DNS-01 selection path, kept as a positive control because it worked before (the default the wizard fell back to happened to be the DNS-01 account) and must keep working after. Adds src/setupTests.js with the ResizeObserver and matchMedia polyfills jsdom lacks and Ant Design 5 needs before any Select can open.
This commit is contained in:
mustafa.ulukaya
@@ -0,0 +1,193 @@
|
||||
/**
|
||||
* v1.10.3 regression tests: with more than one ACME account, the certificate wizard must honour the
|
||||
* account the operator picked — on the Review step AND in the request it submits.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* These drive the real component through all three wizard steps rather than testing a helper,
|
||||
* because the bug was invisible until the wizard ADVANCED PAST the step that owns the account
|
||||
* Select: Form.useWatch reports only fields that are currently rendered, so on Review the selection
|
||||
* read `undefined` and the wizard silently reverted to the default account. A unit test of any
|
||||
* single function would have passed the whole time.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
import React from 'react';
|
||||
import { render, screen, fireEvent, waitFor, act } from '@testing-library/react';
|
||||
import axios from 'axios';
|
||||
import ACMEAutomation from '../ACMEAutomation';
|
||||
|
||||
jest.mock('axios');
|
||||
jest.mock('react-router-dom', () => ({ useNavigate: () => jest.fn() }));
|
||||
jest.mock('../../contexts/ClusterContext', () => ({
|
||||
useCluster: () => ({ clusters: [], selectCluster: jest.fn() }),
|
||||
}));
|
||||
|
||||
// The account list arrives ORDER BY id while the backend's default is ORDER BY created_at DESC, so
|
||||
// this fixture is deliberately the shape that made the two disagree: the DNS-01 account is BOTH the
|
||||
// lower id and the older account, the HTTP-01 account is the newest. Picking the first valid entry
|
||||
// (as the UI used to) yields the DNS-01 account; the backend would have used the HTTP-01 one.
|
||||
const DNS_ACCOUNT = {
|
||||
id: 1, email: 'dns@example.com', status: 'valid',
|
||||
challenge_type: 'dns-01', dns_provider: 'godaddy',
|
||||
created_at: '2026-05-06T00:00:00Z', directory_url: 'https://acme.zerossl.com/v2/DV90',
|
||||
};
|
||||
const HTTP_ACCOUNT = {
|
||||
id: 2, email: 'http@example.com', status: 'valid',
|
||||
challenge_type: 'http-01', dns_provider: null,
|
||||
created_at: '2026-08-08T00:00:00Z', directory_url: 'https://acme.zerossl.com/v2/DV90',
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
const GET_ROUTES = {
|
||||
'/api/letsencrypt/orders': [],
|
||||
'/api/letsencrypt/accounts': [DNS_ACCOUNT, HTTP_ACCOUNT],
|
||||
'/api/letsencrypt/renewal-schedule': [],
|
||||
'/api/clusters': { clusters: [{ id: 10, name: 'cluster-a', acme_enabled: true, is_active: true }] },
|
||||
'/api/letsencrypt/prerequisites': { steps: [] },
|
||||
'/api/letsencrypt/dns-providers': {
|
||||
dns01_enabled: true,
|
||||
providers: [
|
||||
{ name: 'manual', label: 'Manual', automated: false, credential_fields: [] },
|
||||
{
|
||||
name: 'godaddy', label: 'GoDaddy', automated: true,
|
||||
credential_fields: [
|
||||
{ key: 'api_key', label: 'API Key', type: 'password', required: true, max_length: 200, help: 'Production key' },
|
||||
{ key: 'api_secret', label: 'API Secret', type: 'password', required: false, max_length: 200, help: 'Blank for a PAT' },
|
||||
],
|
||||
},
|
||||
],
|
||||
},
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
beforeEach(() => {
|
||||
jest.clearAllMocks();
|
||||
axios.get.mockImplementation((url) =>
|
||||
Promise.resolve({ data: Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(GET_ROUTES, url) ? GET_ROUTES[url] : {} })
|
||||
);
|
||||
axios.post.mockResolvedValue({ data: { message: 'ok', order_id: 99 } });
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
const modal = () => document.querySelector('.ant-modal-content');
|
||||
|
||||
/** Open the wizard and wait for the Domains step. */
|
||||
async function openWizard() {
|
||||
render(<ACMEAutomation />);
|
||||
// Settle the initial fetch on a signal that does NOT depend on which account the component picks
|
||||
// as its default — that choice is one of the things under test, so waiting on an account address
|
||||
// here would make every test fail at the same early point instead of at its own assertion.
|
||||
await waitFor(() => expect(axios.get).toHaveBeenCalledWith('/api/letsencrypt/accounts'));
|
||||
await act(async () => {});
|
||||
fireEvent.click(screen.getByRole('button', { name: /Request Certificate/i }));
|
||||
await screen.findByText('Domain Names');
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/** antd wires the Form.Item name onto the inner input's id, which is the only stable handle. */
|
||||
function typeDomain(domain) {
|
||||
const input = document.getElementById('domains');
|
||||
fireEvent.change(input, { target: { value: domain } });
|
||||
fireEvent.keyDown(input, { key: 'Enter', keyCode: 13 });
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
async function selectAccount(email) {
|
||||
await act(async () => {
|
||||
fireEvent.mouseDown(document.getElementById('account_id'));
|
||||
});
|
||||
const option = [...document.querySelectorAll('.ant-select-item-option')]
|
||||
.find((o) => o.textContent.includes(email));
|
||||
if (!option) throw new Error(`account option not found: ${email}`);
|
||||
await act(async () => {
|
||||
fireEvent.click(option);
|
||||
});
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
const next = async () => {
|
||||
await act(async () => {
|
||||
fireEvent.click(screen.getByRole('button', { name: /^Next$/ }));
|
||||
});
|
||||
};
|
||||
const submitButton = () => screen.getByRole('button', { name: /Submit Request/i });
|
||||
|
||||
async function gotoReview({ domain = 'example.com', account } = {}) {
|
||||
await openWizard();
|
||||
typeDomain(domain);
|
||||
await next();
|
||||
// Wait for the Configuration step to actually MOUNT. The transition is async (validateFields
|
||||
// returns a promise) and the text "ACME Account" also appears on the dashboard card behind the
|
||||
// modal, so waiting on that text can resolve while the wizard is still on step 1.
|
||||
await waitFor(() => expect(document.getElementById('account_id')).toBeTruthy());
|
||||
if (account) await selectAccount(account);
|
||||
await next();
|
||||
await screen.findByText('Prerequisite Check');
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/** The Review step's rendered text. Compared as a whole string on purpose: the assertions must
|
||||
* describe BEHAVIOUR, not the markup this change happens to use, so that a failure means the
|
||||
* wizard resolved the wrong account rather than that a wrapper element moved. */
|
||||
const reviewText = () => modal().textContent;
|
||||
|
||||
async function submitAndGetBody() {
|
||||
fireEvent.click(submitButton());
|
||||
await waitFor(() => expect(axios.post).toHaveBeenCalled());
|
||||
const [url, body] = axios.post.mock.calls[0];
|
||||
expect(url).toBe('/api/letsencrypt/certificates');
|
||||
return body;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
describe('certificate wizard with multiple ACME accounts', () => {
|
||||
test('an explicitly picked HTTP-01 account survives the step change and is what gets submitted', async () => {
|
||||
await gotoReview({ account: HTTP_ACCOUNT.email });
|
||||
|
||||
// The payload is the real evidence. account_id used to come from the form store while
|
||||
// challenge_type came from an account object that had reverted to the default, so the API got
|
||||
// "HTTP-01 account + dns-01" and answered 422 "no DNS provider configured for DNS-01".
|
||||
const body = await submitAndGetBody();
|
||||
expect(body.account_id).toBe(HTTP_ACCOUNT.id);
|
||||
expect(body.challenge_type).toBe('http-01');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('the Review step describes the picked HTTP-01 account, not the default', async () => {
|
||||
await gotoReview({ account: HTTP_ACCOUNT.email });
|
||||
|
||||
expect(reviewText()).toContain(HTTP_ACCOUNT.email);
|
||||
expect(reviewText()).not.toContain(DNS_ACCOUNT.email);
|
||||
// "Challenge Method" and the provider name only render on the DNS-01 branch.
|
||||
expect(reviewText()).not.toContain('Challenge Method');
|
||||
expect(reviewText()).not.toContain('godaddy');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('an explicitly picked DNS-01 account is described and submitted as DNS-01', async () => {
|
||||
// Positive control: the DNS-01 path must keep working. This one passed before the fix too,
|
||||
// because the default the wizard fell back to happened to be the DNS-01 account.
|
||||
await gotoReview({ account: DNS_ACCOUNT.email });
|
||||
|
||||
expect(reviewText()).toContain(DNS_ACCOUNT.email);
|
||||
expect(reviewText()).toContain('Challenge Method');
|
||||
expect(reviewText()).toContain('godaddy');
|
||||
|
||||
const body = await submitAndGetBody();
|
||||
expect(body.account_id).toBe(DNS_ACCOUNT.id);
|
||||
expect(body.challenge_type).toBe('dns-01');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('with no explicit pick the wizard previews and sends the same default the backend would use', async () => {
|
||||
// The backend takes the NEWEST valid account; the UI used to preview the oldest entry of a
|
||||
// list ordered by id, so Review described an account the request never went to.
|
||||
await gotoReview();
|
||||
|
||||
expect(reviewText()).toContain(HTTP_ACCOUNT.email);
|
||||
expect(reviewText()).not.toContain(DNS_ACCOUNT.email);
|
||||
|
||||
const body = await submitAndGetBody();
|
||||
// Sent explicitly rather than left to the backend to guess a second time.
|
||||
expect(body.account_id).toBe(HTTP_ACCOUNT.id);
|
||||
expect(body.challenge_type).toBe('http-01');
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
test('the wildcard guard still applies on the Review step, where Submit lives', async () => {
|
||||
// Same root cause as the account bug: `domains` is entered on the first step, so a
|
||||
// non-preserving useWatch read undefined from Review onward and the guard evaporated at exactly
|
||||
// the point it had to hold.
|
||||
await gotoReview({ domain: '*.example.com', account: HTTP_ACCOUNT.email });
|
||||
|
||||
expect(reviewText()).toContain('Wildcard requires a DNS-01 account');
|
||||
expect(submitButton()).toBeDisabled();
|
||||
fireEvent.click(submitButton());
|
||||
expect(axios.post).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
// Loaded automatically by react-scripts test (CRA convention).
|
||||
import '@testing-library/jest-dom';
|
||||
|
||||
// jsdom implements neither of these, and Ant Design 5 needs both: rc-select renders its dropdown
|
||||
// through rc-virtual-list (ResizeObserver) and the responsive Grid reads matchMedia. Without the
|
||||
// polyfills any test that opens a Select throws before it can assert anything.
|
||||
if (!global.ResizeObserver) {
|
||||
global.ResizeObserver = class {
|
||||
observe() {}
|
||||
unobserve() {}
|
||||
disconnect() {}
|
||||
};
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (!window.matchMedia) {
|
||||
window.matchMedia = (query) => ({
|
||||
matches: false,
|
||||
media: query,
|
||||
onchange: null,
|
||||
addListener: () => {},
|
||||
removeListener: () => {},
|
||||
addEventListener: () => {},
|
||||
removeEventListener: () => {},
|
||||
dispatchEvent: () => false,
|
||||
});
|
||||
}
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user