
Write Tests
- 7 installs
- 8.7k repo stars
- Updated August 4, 2026
- getsentry/sentry-javascript
write-tests skill documents Write high-quality unit tests (Vitest) and E2E tests (Playwright) following senior test-engineering practices.
About
write-tests skill documents Write high-quality unit tests (Vitest) and E2E tests (Playwright) following senior test-engineering practices. Use this skill whenever asked to write tests, add test coverage, create test cases, fix failing tests, add missing assertions, test a new feature, write specs, or cover edge cases. Also tri. name: write-tests description: >
- Write high-quality unit tests (Vitest) and E2E tests (Playwright) following senior test-engineering practices.
- Use `toEqual` by default. The same applies to `toHaveBeenCalledWith` - spell out every
- Use exported constants, not magic numbers. If the code under test uses named constants like
- When you need `vi.mock`: If the package's existing tests use string paths
- Platform-specific setup patterns for write-tests.
Write Tests by the numbers
- 7 all-time installs (skills.sh)
- Ranked #852 of 1,352 Code Review & Quality skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
- Data as of Aug 5, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
write-tests capabilities & compatibility
- Capabilities
- write tests quick start · write tests when to use guidance · write tests integration patterns
- Works with
- sentry
- Use cases
- code review
What write-tests says it does
Write high-quality unit tests (Vitest) and E2E tests (Playwright) following senior test-engineering
practices. Use this skill whenever asked to write tests, add test coverage, create test cases,
npx skills add https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-javascript --skill write-testsAdd your badge
Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.
| Installs | 7 |
|---|---|
| repo stars | ★ 8.7k |
| Last updated | August 4, 2026 |
| Repository | getsentry/sentry-javascript ↗ |
How do I use write-tests correctly?
Write high-quality unit tests (Vitest) and E2E tests (Playwright) following senior test-engineering practices. Use this skill whenever asked to write tests, add test coverage, create test cases, fix f
Who is it for?
Teams implementing write-tests workflows from the catalog.
Skip if: Skip when requirements clearly match a different specialized stack.
When should I use this skill?
User asks about write-tests, write high-quality unit tests (vitest) and e2e tests (playwright) following senior test-en.
What you get
Working write-tests setup with validated configuration and next steps.
Files
Write Tests
Tests are not production code. They are documentation — each one is a tiny executable spec that says "this system does X." A reader should grasp the intent in seconds. A failure should point to exactly one broken behavior, not leave you going through a 40-line test body.
Workflow
Follow these steps in order before writing any test code.
1. Decide the framework. Testing a function's return value, side effects, or module interactions → Vitest (lives under packages/<name>/test/). Testing that a real HTTP request to a running app produces the correct Sentry envelope → Playwright (lives under dev-packages/e2e-tests/test-applications/<app>/tests/). Testing Node SDK instrumentation against real envelope output → node-integration-tests (lives under dev-packages/node-integration-tests/suites/).
Parameterization differs by framework — pick the right one:
| Framework | How to parameterize |
|---|---|
| Vitest | it.each / it.for (runner-integrated, one test each) |
| Playwright E2E | .forEach() outside test() (registers separate tests) |
| Node integration tests | Loops inside a single test() body (one Node.js process) |
2. Read 2–3 existing test files in the target test/ directory. Specifically note:
- Which
vi.mockstyle they use (string path or import form) - What cleanup they do in
beforeEach(clearAllMocksvsrestoreAllMocks) - How they import the module under test (
../../src/...vs@sentry/...) - The
describe/itnesting depth and naming style - What setup functions are called together — does the function under test require companion
initialization? (e.g., does patchRoute also need patchAppUse to work correctly?)
Match what you find. Consistency within a package matters more than idealized best practice.
3. Check for existing test utilities before writing helpers from scratch:
packages/core/test/mocks/—TestClient,getDefaultTestClientOptions, fake transportspackages/core/test/testutils.ts—clearGlobalScope(), version gatingdev-packages/test-utils/—waitForTransaction,waitForError,waitForSession,
getPlaywrightConfig, mock Sentry server, event proxy
dev-packages/node-integration-tests/utils/—createEsmAndCjsTests, assertion helpers
4. Identify the behaviors that matter most — edge cases, error paths, boundary conditions. Don't aim for quantity; aim for the tests that would catch real regressions.
---
Core principles
Fewer tests, better tests
The goal is not to maximize test count. A large suite of shallow happy-path tests gives a false sense of coverage — they pass on every change, including changes that introduce bugs. A smaller suite that targets edge cases, error paths, and boundary conditions catches far more regressions.
Before writing a test, ask: "If this test didn't exist, what bug could ship?" If you can't answer that concretely, the test probably isn't worth writing. Prioritize:
- Edge cases and boundaries — the off-by-one, the empty array, the
nullinput - Error paths — does the function fail gracefully or silently swallow the error?
- Integration seams — where two modules or systems interact (e.g., middleware calling
next()) - Behavior that previously broke — regression tests for known bugs
Don't waste tests on: trivial getters/setters, pure delegation to well-tested libraries, TypeScript type constraints (the compiler already checks those), or re-testing the same behavior that a higher-level test already covers.
Arrange → Act → Assert
Structure every test with the AAA pattern, separated by blank lines. The whitespace makes the phases obvious — no labels or comments needed.
it('skips errors already captured by middleware', () => {
const error = new Error('already captured');
Object.defineProperty(error, '__sentry_captured__', { value: true });
responseHandler(createMockContext(500, error));
expect(mockCaptureException).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});One behavior, one reason to fail
Each test makes exactly one behavioral claim. Multiple expect calls are fine when they assert on different facets of the _same_ outcome. But if you're checking two unrelated behaviors, those are two tests. No conditional logic, no branching, no try/catch — a test is a straight line.
Assert behavior, not implementation
If someone refactored the internals but the function still returned the correct result, would this test break? If yes, you're testing wiring, not behavior.
// Bad: asserts nothing meaningful
it('handles the request', async () => {
expect(() => handler(mockReq)).not.toThrow();
});
// Good: asserts on the observable outcome
it('sets transaction name from route path', () => {
responseHandler(createMockContext(200));
expect(mockSetTransactionName).toHaveBeenCalledWith('GET /test');
});Precise assertions
Default to exact matching. toMatchObject, expect.objectContaining, and expect.arrayContaining silently ignore fields that matter. This has caused real bugs to ship in this codebase.
Use `toEqual` by default. The same applies to toHaveBeenCalledWith — spell out every argument rather than wrapping in objectContaining. This is the single most common place where loose assertions creep in:
// Bad: silently ignores any missing or extra properties in the call
expect(startSpan).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expect.objectContaining({ name: 'middleware', op: 'middleware.hono' }));
// Good: exact match on the full argument — if the shape changes, the test catches it
expect(startSpan).toHaveBeenCalledWith({
name: 'middleware',
op: 'middleware.hono',
onlyIfParent: true,
parentSpan: fakeRootSpan,
attributes: { 'sentry.op': 'middleware.hono', 'sentry.origin': 'auto.middleware.hono' },
});The only valid reasons to use toMatchObject or objectContaining are: (1) the object is generated by a framework or third-party library and contains fields you don't control (timestamps, random IDs, internal framework state), or (2) the object has 10+ fields and the test only cares about 2–3 of them (in which case individual .toBe() checks on those fields are still preferred). If you wrote the object being asserted, you can spell it out — use toEqual.
When you do fall back, prefer individual .toBe() checks over objectContaining:
expect(event.transaction).toBe('GET /users/:id');
expect(event.contexts?.trace?.op).toBe('http.server');Every `toContain` / `toContainEqual` needs a `toHaveLength` companion. Without it, the assertion passes even if the array has unexpected extra items:
// Bad: doesn't notice extra unexpected spans
expect(spanNames).toContain('authMiddleware');
// Good: locks down both content and count
expect(spanNames).toHaveLength(1);
expect(spanNames).toContain('authMiddleware');Use exported constants, not magic numbers. If the code under test uses named constants like SPAN_STATUS_OK, reference those same constants in assertions. If the constant's value ever changes, tests using magic numbers silently pass with wrong expectations.
Naming
Names should be concise, descriptive, and read as correct English. Lead with the verb.
| Quality | Example |
|---|---|
| Good | 'captures error when context.error is set' |
| Good | 'does not re-capture errors already captured by wrapMiddlewareWithSpan' |
| Good | 'returns empty array when no items match' |
| Bad | 'should correctly return the formatted price string when given a valid positive number' |
| Bad | 'test error handling' / 'works correctly' |
Drop "should" — it adds words without adding meaning.
---
Input quality
Use realistic data
// Weak
const url = 'http://test';
// Strong — exercises URL parsing, path handling, query strings
const url = 'https://api.example.com/users/42?include=profile&format=json';Boundary Value Analysis
If the valid range is 1–100, test -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 99, 100, 101, Number.POSITIVE_INFINITY. Bugs cluster at boundaries — off-by-one errors, inclusive/exclusive confusion, type coercion.
Test the unhappy path as hard as the happy path
- Empty inputs:
'',[],{},undefined,null - Falsy-but-valid:
0,false,'',NaN— these trip up loose truthiness checks - Error conditions: network failure, malformed input, missing required fields, timeout
- Concurrency: what if called twice simultaneously? What if called after cleanup?
Each edge case gets its own test with a descriptive name.
---
Writing Vitest tests
File structure
- Name test files
*.test.ts, mirroring the source path:src/shared/patchRoute.ts→
test/shared/patchRoute.test.ts.
- Import the module under test from its source path (
../../src/...). But when importing from a _different_ package
(e.g., @sentry/core in a @sentry/node test), use the package name — that's a real dependency, not the code under test.
- For browser-environment tests:
/** @vitest-environment jsdom */at top of file.
Mocking
Prefer spies and stubs over full module mocks. A spy observes behavior without replacing the system under test. A full mock replaces it — and now you're testing your mock, not your code.
const warnSpy = vi.spyOn(SentryCore.debug, 'warn');
sentry(app);
expect(warnSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expect.stringContaining('not initialized'));When you need `vi.mock`: If the package's existing tests use string paths (vi.mock('../../src/utils')), match that style. If you're creating the first test file for a package, prefer the import form for type safety:
vi.mock(import('../../src/utils'), async importOriginal => {
const actual = await importOriginal();
return { ...actual, helperFn: vi.fn() };
});Always restore mocks. This repo does _not_ set restoreMocks: true globally — you are responsible for cleanup. Leaked mocks cause mysterious failures in unrelated tests. Use whatever cleanup the existing tests in your package use. If creating the first test file, use:
beforeEach(() => {
vi.restoreAllMocks();
});Error testing
Use the library's built-in matchers. Never use try/catch in tests.
expect(() => parseConfig(null)).toThrow('config is required');
await expect(asyncOp()).rejects.toThrow(TimeoutError);For async callbacks where you need to verify an assertion actually ran, use expect.assertions(n).
Parameterized tests (Vitest)
Use it.each or it.for for data-driven cases — not raw for loops. it.each integrates with the test runner, gives better output, and each case runs independently.
it.each([
{ input: 0, expected: 'zero' },
{ input: 1, expected: 'one' },
{ input: -1, expected: 'negative' },
])('classifies $input as $expected', ({ input, expected }) => {
expect(classify(input)).toBe(expected);
});Test isolation
Tests must never depend on execution order or share mutable state. For this codebase, many tests need to reset global Sentry state:
beforeEach(() => {
clearGlobalScope();
getCurrentScope().clear();
getIsolationScope().clear();
});Grouping
1-2 levels of describe is usually enough. Deeper nesting makes tests harder to find and read.
describe('patchRoute', () => {
describe('sub-app middleware wrapping', () => {
it('wraps .use() middleware handlers', async () => { ... });
it('does not wrap sole route handlers', async () => { ... });
});
});---
Writing node-integration-tests
Node integration tests (dev-packages/node-integration-tests/) use createEsmAndCjsTests to run a real Node scenario file and assert on captured Sentry envelopes.
Minimize test() calls — each one spawns a separate Node process
This is the opposite of the Playwright rule. In Playwright, each test() is cheap — use .forEach() to register many tests. In node-integration-tests, each test() forks a fresh Node process with full startup cost. A describe.each matrix that looks reasonable in a unit test context balloons into dozens of cold starts and slows CI by a large factor.
Rule: loop inside the test body, not around `test()` calls.
// Bad: 2 routes × 5 methods = 10 separate Node processes
createEsmAndCjsTests(__dirname, 'scenario.mjs', 'instrument.mjs', (createRunner, test) => {
describe.each(['/sync', '/async'])('when using %s route', route => {
describe.each(['get', 'post', 'put', 'delete', 'patch'])('when using %s method', method => {
test('handles transaction', async () => {
// ...
});
});
});
});// Good: one Node process, all combinations asserted in a single test run
createEsmAndCjsTests(__dirname, 'scenario.mjs', 'instrument.mjs', (createRunner, test) => {
test('handles transactions for all route/method/path combinations', async () => {
const runner = createRunner();
const requests: Array<{ method: string; url: string }> = [];
for (const route of ['/sync', '/async']) {
for (const method of ['get', 'post', 'put', 'delete', 'patch']) {
const fullPath = `${route}${path}`;
runner.expect({
transaction: { transaction: `${method.toUpperCase()} ${fullPath}` },
});
requests.push({ method, url: fullPath });
}
}
const started = runner.start();
for (const req of requests) {
await started.makeRequest(req.method, req.url);
}
await started.completed();
}, 60_000);
});If a subset of cases has meaningfully different expectations (e.g., error vs. success), split into two tests — not thirty.
---
Writing Playwright E2E tests
When to write E2E tests
Write E2E tests when you need to verify that the SDK correctly instruments a real application. Unit tests can't catch integration bugs between the SDK and a framework's request lifecycle. Also use the /e2e skill for running E2E tests.
File structure
- Tests live in
dev-packages/e2e-tests/test-applications/<app-name>/tests/*.test.ts. - Shared constants (like
APP_NAME) go intests/constants.ts. - Each test app has a
playwright.config.tsusinggetPlaywrightConfigfrom
@sentry-internal/test-utils.
The waitFor pattern
Set up a promise for the expected Sentry event, trigger the action, then await and assert.
test('captures transaction for GET /users/:id', async ({ baseURL }) => {
const transactionPromise = waitForTransaction(APP_NAME, event => {
return event.contexts?.trace?.op === 'http.server' && event.transaction === 'GET /users/:id';
});
const response = await fetch(`${baseURL}/users/42`);
expect(response.status).toBe(200);
const transaction = await transactionPromise;
expect(transaction.contexts?.trace?.op).toBe('http.server');
expect(transaction.transaction).toBe('GET /users/:id');
});The predicate must be specific enough to match only your event. A vague predicate can match an unrelated event from a parallel test, causing flaky passes or hangs.
Asserting on spans
Prefer asserting on the exact span count alongside individual field checks:
const spans = transaction.spans || [];
expect(spans).toHaveLength(2);
const middlewareSpan = spans.find(s => s.description === 'middlewareA');
expect(middlewareSpan?.op).toBe('middleware.hono');
expect(middlewareSpan?.origin).toBe('auto.middleware.hono');
expect(middlewareSpan?.status).toBe('ok');Error event assertions
Check both the exception value and the mechanism. The mechanism tells you _how_ the error was captured — that's the SDK's actual responsibility:
const errorEvent = await errorPromise;
expect(errorEvent.exception?.values?.[0]?.value).toBe('connection refused');
const mechanism = errorEvent.exception?.values?.[0]?.mechanism;
expect(mechanism?.handled).toBe(false);
expect(mechanism?.type).toBe('auto.http.hono.context_error');Parameterized E2E tests
For Playwright tests (unlike Vitest), use standard JS .forEach() as this is recommended by Playwright, not it.each or it.for, which are Vitest-only APIs. The .forEach() runs at discovery time, registering each case as its own independent test. All cases then run separately at execution time.
[
{ a: 1, b: 1, expected: 2 },
{ a: 1, b: 2, expected: 3 },
{ a: 2, b: 1, expected: 3 },
].forEach(({ a, b, expected }) => {
test(`given ${a} and ${b} as arguments, returns ${expected}`, ({ page }) => {
expect(a + b).toEqual(expected);
});
});Don't put the loop inside a single test. That collapses all cases into one test body — a failure in one iteration aborts the rest, and the runner reports a single failure with no per-case visibility:
// Bad: all routes tested in one test — a failure on /users skips /posts entirely
test('captures transactions for all routes', async ({ baseURL }) => {
for (const route of ['/users', '/posts', '/comments']) {
const txn = await waitForTransaction(APP_NAME, e => e.transaction === `GET ${route}`);
await fetch(`${baseURL}${route}`);
expect(txn.contexts?.trace?.op).toBe('http.server');
}
});SSR hydration timing
In SSR apps (Nuxt, SvelteKit, Next.js), elements are visible before framework event handlers attach. Playwright's actionability checks pass on server-rendered HTML, so .click() can fire before hydration, making it a no-op and timing out waitForError. Wait for the Sentry SDK before interacting:
await page.goto(`/test-param/1234`);
await page.waitForFunction(() => typeof window.__SENTRY__ === 'object');
await page.locator('#errorBtn').click();Don't use networkidle. Playwright discourages it. Use waitForFunction with a condition that directly proves readiness.
Common pitfalls
- Proxy name mismatch:
APP_NAMEmust matchproxyServerNameinstart-event-proxy.mjs. - Flaky predicates: Add enough specificity (path, method, unique marker) to disambiguate.
- Forgetting `await`: The
waitFor*helpers return a promise. Withoutawait, the test passes
vacuously and the assertion never runs.
---
Checklist
Before you're done, verify each test against these criteria:
- [ ] Catches a real potential bug — not just confirming the happy path works
- [ ] Single, clear reason it could fail
- [ ] Description reads as a behavior specification (no "should", no "works correctly")
- [ ] No dependency on other tests' execution or state
- [ ] Mocks and spies are restored (via
beforeEach) - [ ] Edge cases covered: empty inputs, boundaries, error paths, null/undefined
- [ ] Realistic test data (not
"foo","test",123) - [ ] No try/catch for error testing —
toThrow/rejects.toThrowonly - [ ] Assertions use
toEqualby default;toHaveBeenCalledWithspells out full arguments - [ ] Array lookups (
toContain,toContainEqual) paired withtoHaveLength - [ ] Uses exported constants (e.g.,
SPAN_STATUS_OK) instead of magic numbers - [ ] Passes in isolation (
vitest run <file>or single Playwright test) - [ ] Matches the existing conventions of the package's test directory
Related skills
FAQ
What does write-tests do?
write-tests skill documents Write high-quality unit tests (Vitest) and E2E tests (Playwright) following senior test-engineering practices.
When should I use write-tests?
User asks about write-tests, write high-quality unit tests (vitest) and e2e tests (playwright) following senior test-en.
Is this skill safe to install?
Review the Security Audits panel on this page before installing in production.