Skip to content

Phase 3 Technical Debt Issues #619

New issue
New issue
Open
Open
Phase 3 Technical Debt Issues#619
@github-actions

Description

@github-actions
github-actions
bot
opened on Feb 3, 2026

Phase 3 Technical Debt Issues

Issue 1: Test Infrastructure - Resolve undici WebSocket conflicts

Priority: P1
Estimate: 8-12 hours
Milestone: Next Sprint

Problem

The current test infrastructure (jsdom + undici) has a known WebSocket compatibility issue that prevents testing of components using LiveLogViewer:

  • Current State: 190 pre-existing unhandled rejections in test suite
  • Blocker: InvalidArgumentError: websocket upgrade may only be requested on a HTTP/1.1 request
  • Impact: Cannot test Security.tsx, SecurityHeaders.tsx, Dashboard.tsx components (458 test cases created but unusable)
  • Coverage Impact: Frontend stuck at 84.25%, cannot reach 85% target without infrastructure fix

Root Cause

jsdom uses undici v5.x internally which has incomplete WebSocket support. When Mock Service Worker (MSW) v1.x intercepts fetch requests, undici's WebSocket client throws errors when attempting to upgrade connections.

Evidence:

Error: InvalidArgumentError: websocket upgrade may only be requested on a HTTP/1.1 request
    at new WebSocket (node_modules/undici/lib/web/websocket/websocket.js:95:13)
    at new WebSocketClient (frontend/src/lib/websocket-client.ts:34:5)

Proposed Solutions

Option A: Upgrade MSW to v2.x (Recommended)

  • Effort: 4-6 hours
  • Pros:
    • Uses native fetch() API (more standards-compliant)
    • Better undici compatibility
    • Smaller migration surface (MSW API changes only)
  • Cons:
    • Breaking changes in MSW v2.x API
    • Need to update all MSW handlers and setup files
  • Migration Guide: https://mswjs.io/docs/migrations/1.x-to-2.x

Option B: Migrate to happy-dom (Alternative)

  • Effort: 8-12 hours
  • Pros:
    • Better WebSocket support out-of-the-box
    • Faster than jsdom for large DOM trees
    • Growing adoption in React ecosystem
  • Cons:
    • Larger migration surface (entire test environment)
    • Potential compatibility issues with existing tests
    • Less mature than jsdom
  • Documentation: https://github.com/capricorn86/happy-dom

Option C: Vitest Browser Mode (Long-term)

  • Effort: 12-16 hours
  • Pros:
    • Real browser environment (no DOM emulation)
    • Playwright integration (consistent with E2E tests)
    • Best WebSocket support
  • Cons:
    • Largest migration effort
    • Requires CI infrastructure changes
    • Slower test execution
  • Documentation: https://vitest.dev/guide/browser.html

Recommended Approach

  1. Immediate (Sprint 1): Upgrade MSW to v2.x

    • Fixes WebSocket compatibility with minimal disruption
    • Validates solution with existing 458 test cases
    • Expected coverage improvement: 84.25% → 86-87%

  2. Future (Q2 2026): Evaluate happy-dom or Vitest browser mode

    • Re-assess after MSW v2.x validates WebSocket testing
    • Consider if additional benefits justify migration effort

Acceptance Criteria

  • 190 pre-existing unhandled rejections reduced to zero
  • All test utilities using WebSocket work correctly:
    • LiveLogViewer component
    • WebSocketProvider context
    • Real-time log streaming tests
  • 458 created test cases (Security.tsx, SecurityHeaders.tsx, Dashboard.tsx) execute successfully
  • Frontend coverage improves from 84.25% to ≥85%
  • No regression in existing 1552 passing tests
  • CI pipeline remains stable (execution time <10min)

Implementation Plan

Phase 1: Research (Day 1)

  • Audit all MSW v1.x usages in codebase
  • Review MSW v2.x migration guide
  • Create detailed migration checklist
  • Document breaking changes and required code updates

Phase 2: Upgrade MSW (Days 2-3)

  • Update package.json: msw@^2.0.0
  • Update MSW handlers in frontend/src/mocks/handlers.ts
  • Update MSW setup in frontend/src/setupTests.ts
  • Fix any breaking changes in test files
  • Run frontend tests locally: npm test

Phase 3: Validate WebSocket Support (Day 4)

  • Run Security.tsx test suite (200 tests)
  • Run SecurityHeaders.tsx test suite (143 tests)
  • Run Dashboard.tsx test suite (115 tests)
  • Verify zero unhandled rejections
  • Check frontend coverage: npm run test:coverage

Phase 4: CI Validation (Day 5)

  • Push to feature branch
  • Monitor CI test results
  • Verify no regressions in E2E tests
  • Confirm Codecov patch coverage ≥85%
  • Merge if all checks pass

References

Issue 2: Weak Assertions - Strengthen certificates.spec.ts validation

Priority: P2
Estimate: 2-3 hours
Milestone: Q1 2026

Problem

Phase 2 code review identified 15+ instances of weak assertions in tests/core/certificates.spec.ts that verify UI interactions but not underlying data changes. Examples:

  • Line 403: Verifies dialog closed but not certificate data deleted from API
  • Line 551: Verifies form submitted but not certificate created in database
  • Line 654: Verifies toggle clicked but not "Force SSL" flag persisted

Impact

  • Tests pass even if API operations fail silently
  • False sense of security (green tests, broken features)
  • Reduced confidence in regression detection

Proposed Solution

Add data validation assertions after UI interactions:

Pattern:

// ❌ Weak: Only verifies UI state
await clickButton(page, 'Delete');
await expect(dialog).not.toBeVisible();

// ✅ Strong: Verifies API state
await clickButton(page, 'Delete');
await expect(dialog).not.toBeVisible();

// Verify certificate no longer exists
const response = await page.request.get(`/api/v1/certificates/${certId}`);
expect(response.status()).toBe(404);

Acceptance Criteria

  • All delete operations verify HTTP 404 response
  • All create operations verify HTTP 201 response with correct data
  • All update operations verify HTTP 200 response with updated fields
  • Toggle operations verify API state matches UI state
  • No reduction in test execution speed (<10% increase acceptable)

Reference

Issue 3: Coverage Improvement - Target untouched packages

Priority: P2
Estimate: 6-8 hours
Milestone: Q1 2026

Problem

Phase 3 backend coverage improvements targeted 5 packages and successfully brought them to 85%+, but overall coverage only reached 84.2% due to untouched packages:

  • services package: 82.6% (needs +2.4% to reach 85%)
  • builtin DNS provider: 30.4% (needs +54.6% to reach 85%)
  • Other packages: Various levels below 85%

Proposed Solution

Sprint 1: Services Package (Priority, 3-4 hours)

  • Target: 82.6% → 85%
  • Focus areas:
    • internal/services/certificate_service.go (renewal logic)
    • internal/services/proxy_host_service.go (validation)
    • internal/services/dns_provider_service.go (sync operations)

Sprint 2: Builtin DNS Provider (Lower priority, 3-4 hours)

  • Target: 30.4% → 50% (incremental improvement)
  • Focus areas:
    • internal/dnsprovider/builtin/provider.go (ACME integration)
    • Error handling and edge cases
    • Configuration validation

Acceptance Criteria

  • Backend coverage improves from 84.2% to ≥85%
  • All new tests use table-driven test pattern
  • Test execution time remains <5 seconds
  • No flaky tests introduced
  • Codecov patch coverage ≥85% on modified files

Reference

Issue 4: Feature Flag Tests - Fix async propagation failures

Priority: P2
Estimate: 2-3 hours
Milestone: Q1 2026

Problem

4 tests in tests/settings/system-settings.spec.ts are skipped due to async propagation issues:

test.skip('should toggle CrowdSec console enrollment', async ({ page }) => {
  // Skipped: Async propagation to frontend not working reliably
});

Root Cause

Feature flag changes propagate asynchronously from backend → Caddy → frontend. Tests toggle flag and immediately verify UI state, but frontend hasn't received update yet.

Proposed Solution

Use waitForFeatureFlagPropagation() helper after toggle operations:

test('should toggle CrowdSec console enrollment', async ({ page }) => {
  const toggle = page.getByRole('switch', { name: /crowdsec.*enrollment/i });
  const initialState = await toggle.isChecked();

  await clickSwitchAndWaitForResponse(page, toggle, /\/feature-flags/);

  // ✅ Wait for propagation before verifying UI
  await waitForFeatureFlagPropagation(page, {
    'crowdsec.console_enrollment': !initialState,
  });

  await expect(toggle).toBeChecked({ checked: !initialState });
});

Acceptance Criteria

  • All 4 skipped tests enabled and passing
  • Tests pass consistently across Chromium, Firefox, WebKit
  • No increase in test execution time (<5% acceptable)
  • No flaky test failures in CI (run 10x to verify)

Reference

Issue 5: WebKit E2E Tests - Investigate execution failure

Priority: P3
Estimate: 2-3 hours
Milestone: Q2 2026

Problem

During Phase 2.4 validation, WebKit tests did not execute despite being specified in the command:

npx playwright test --project=chromium --project=firefox --project=webkit

Observed:

  • Chromium: 873 tests passed
  • Firefox: 873 tests passed
  • WebKit: 0 tests executed (no errors, just skipped)

Possible Root Causes

  1. Configuration Issue: WebKit project disabled in playwright.config.js
  2. Environment Issue: WebKit browser not installed or missing dependencies
  3. Container Issue: E2E Docker container missing WebKit support
  4. Silent Skip: WebKit tests tagged with conditional skip that wasn't reported

Investigation Steps

  1. Verify Configuration:

    # Check WebKit project exists in config
grep -A 10 "name.*webkit" playwright.config.js

  2. Verify Browser Installation:

    # List installed browsers
npx playwright install --dry-run

# Install WebKit if missing
npx playwright install webkit

  3. Test WebKit Directly:

    # Run single test file with WebKit only
npx playwright test tests/core/authentication.spec.ts --project=webkit --headed

  4. Check Container Logs:

    # If running in Docker
docker logs charon-e2e | grep -i webkit

Acceptance Criteria

  • Root cause documented with evidence
  • WebKit tests execute successfully (873 tests expected)
  • WebKit browser installed and working in both local and CI environments
  • CI workflow updated if configuration changes needed
  • Documentation updated with WebKit-specific requirements (if any)

Reference

Instructions for Creating GitHub Issues

Copy each issue above into GitHub Issues UI with the following settings:

Issue 1 (WebSocket Infrastructure):

  • Title: [Test Infrastructure] Resolve undici WebSocket conflicts
  • Labels: P1, testing, infrastructure, technical-debt
  • Milestone: Next Sprint
  • Assignee: TBD

Issue 2 (Weak Assertions):

  • Title: [Test Quality] Strengthen certificates.spec.ts assertions
  • Labels: P2, testing, test-quality, tech-debt
  • Milestone: Q1 2026
  • Assignee: TBD

Issue 3 (Coverage Gaps):

  • Title: [Coverage] Improve backend coverage for services and builtin DNS
  • Labels: P2, testing, coverage, backend
  • Milestone: Q1 2026
  • Assignee: TBD

Issue 4 (Feature Flag Tests):

  • Title: [E2E] Fix skipped feature flag propagation tests
  • Labels: P2, testing, e2e, bug
  • Milestone: Q1 2026
  • Assignee: TBD

Issue 5 (WebKit):

  • Title: [E2E] Investigate WebKit test execution failure
  • Labels: P3, testing, investigation, webkit
  • Milestone: Q2 2026
  • Assignee: TBD

Created: 2026-02-03
Related PR: #609 (E2E Test Triage and Beta Release Preparation)
Phase: Phase 3 Follow-up

Auto-created from phase3_technical_debt.md

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    Charon

    Status

    Backlog

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions