FOUR-13424 Pages Fixes

[caleeli]

Issue & Reproduction Steps

Expected behavior:

Actual behavior:

Solution

How to Test

Test the steps above

Related Tickets & Packages

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.

ci:next

[cypress]

1 failed test on run #434 ↗︎

1

43

0

0

0

Details:

FOUR-13424 Pages Fixes
Project: screen-builder	Commit: c870d3dd6c
Status: Failed	Duration: 02:55 💡
Started: Feb 15, 2024 3:08 PM	Ended: Feb 15, 2024 3:11 PM

  MultipleUpload.spec.js • 1 failed test • CI - Chrome

View Output

Test		Artifacts
Multiple Upload > Upload files in record lists		Test Replay Screenshots

  DeviceVisivilityInspector.spec.js • 0 failed tests • CI - Chrome

View Output

Test		Artifacts

  ValidationRules.spec.js • 0 failed tests • CI - Chrome

View Output

Test		Artifacts

  FormSelectList.spec.js • 0 failed tests • CI - Chrome

View Output

Test		Artifacts

  ComplexScreen.spec.js • 0 failed tests • CI - Chrome

View Output

Test		Artifacts

The first 5 failed specs are shown, see all 76 specs in Cypress Cloud.

Review all test suite changes for PR #1533 ↗︎

[processmaker-sonarqube]

Quality Gate passed

Kudos, no new issues were introduced!

0 New issues
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
13.1% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube