Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

FOUR-16817: Implement check for MultiSelect Options #426

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 1, 2024

Conversation

estebangallego
Copy link
Contributor

@estebangallego estebangallego commented Jun 26, 2024

Issue & Reproduction Steps

This PR addresses the issue of broken Multi Select List field in the Screen Builder project and CypressTests at FormSelectList.spec.js.

Steps to Reproduce:

  1. In the screen-builder package
  2. Run npm install
  3. Run npm run serve
  4. Run npm run open-cypress
  5. find the FormSelectList.spec.js
  6. Run this spec

The FormSelectList.spec.js file is failing the following specs:

  • Multi select list
  • Checkbox select list

UI Check

  1. Create a Screen
  2. Add a Select List
  3. Navigate to the Data Source Option
  4. Add 2 or more options
  5. Click on the Allow Multiple Selections Checkbox
  6. Navigate to the Preview
  7. Click on the select and then in one of the Options
  8. Click on the select again
  • Notice the first option is coming up empty.

Screenshot 2024-06-26 at 1 58 30 PM

Expected Behavior:

  • Test: The FormSelectList.spec.js file should pass all tests successfully.
  • UI: All the options should be available.

Solution:

Implement check if MultiSelect is Disabled

How to Test

Please follow the reproduction steps and make sure that the Expected Behavior is met.

Related Tickets & Packages

Ticket: FOUR-16817

ci:next
ci:deploy

Code Review Checklist

  • I have pulled this code locally and tested it on my instance, along with any associated packages.
  • This code adheres to ProcessMaker Coding Guidelines.
  • This code includes a unit test or an E2E test that tests its functionality, or is covered by an existing test.
  • This solution fixes the bug reported in the original ticket.
  • This solution does not alter the expected output of a component in a way that would break existing Processes.
  • This solution does not implement any breaking changes that would invalidate documentation or cause existing Processes to fail.
  • This solution has been tested with enterprise packages that rely on its functionality and does not introduce bugs in those packages.
  • This code does not duplicate functionality that already exists in the framework or in ProcessMaker.
  • This ticket conforms to the PRD associated with this part of ProcessMaker.

Copy link
Contributor

@eiresendez eiresendez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 👍

Copy link

@tokensPM
Copy link

QA server K8S was successfully deployed https://ci-257e9bbca0.engk8s.processmaker.net

@ryancooley ryancooley merged commit 8745096 into next Jul 1, 2024
7 checks passed
@ryancooley ryancooley deleted the observation/FOUR-16817 branch July 1, 2024 01:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants