Size Change: 0 B

Total Size: 1.27 MB

_{compressed-size-action}

Suggestion (non-blocking): I was wondering if we should also refactor from fireEvent to userEvent, and help with efforts in #44952.

Sure thing! Actually, the fireEvent() was not necessary for this specific test, so I've refactored it further to remove the fireEvent usage.

Thanks again, @tyxla!

Suggestion (non-blocking): I was wondering if we should also refactor from fireEvent to userEvent, and help with efforts in #44952.

Sure thing! Actually, the fireEvent() was not necessary for this specific test, so I've refactored it further to remove the fireEvent usage.

Focusing the textarea imperatively goes a bit against the principles that we've been adopting in our tests throughout the repo (i.e. testinfrom the point of view of the user) — in that sense, my preference would be to focus the textarea by clicking it / tabbing into it. WDYT ?

Suggestion (non-blocking): I was wondering if we should also refactor from fireEvent to userEvent, and help with efforts in #44952.

Sure thing! Actually, the fireEvent() was not necessary for this specific test, so I've refactored it further to remove the fireEvent usage.

Focusing the textarea imperatively goes a bit against the principles that we've been adopting in our tests throughout the repo (i.e. testinfrom the point of view of the user) — in that sense, my preference would be to focus the textarea by clicking it / tabbing into it. WDYT ?

This actually makes a lot of sense and I agree with the sentiment. In that case, we'll need user-event after all.

I've changed it in 24b2f4e to actually resemble a user click on the textarea, which consequently focuses it.

Thank you @ciampo and @Mamaduka 🙌