Skip to content

chore(bugbot): Add testing conventions code review rules #18433

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
Lms24 merged 2 commits into from
Dec 10, 2025
Merged

chore(bugbot): Add testing conventions code review rules #18433

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
e29268f
chore(bugbot): Add testing convetnions code review rules
Lms24 Dec 9, 2025
9d5dee2
add rule for `fix` PRs, slight rewording
Lms24 Dec 9, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions .cursor/BUGBOT.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -45,3 +45,11 @@ Do not flag the issues below if they appear in tests.
convention as the `SEMANTIC_ATTRIBUTE_SENTRY_ORIGIN` value.
- When calling `startSpan`, check if error cases are handled. If flag that it might make sense to try/catch and call `captureException`.
- When calling `generateInstrumentationOnce`, the passed in name MUST match the name of the integration that uses it. If there are more than one instrumentations, they need to follow the pattern `${INSTRUMENTATION_NAME}.some-suffix`.

## Testing Conventions

- When reviewing a `feat(*)` PR, check if the PR includes at least one integration or E2E test. If neither of the two are present, add a comment, recommending to add one.
Copy link
Member

@nicohrubec nicohrubec Dec 9, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

l: Should we add a similar rule for fix(*) PRs?

Copy link
Member Author

@Lms24 Lms24 Dec 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

great point! I think for fixes we should at least require a unit test (or integration/e2e if present of course)

- Check that tests actually test the newly added behaviour. For instance, when checking on sent payloads by the SDK, ensure that the newly added data is asserted thoroughly.
- Flag usage of `expect.objectContaining` and other relaxed assertions, when a test expects something NOT to be included in a payload but there's no respective assertion.
- Flag usage of conditionals in one test and recommend splitting up the test for the different paths.
- Flag usage of loops testing multiple scenarios in one test and recommend using `(it)|(test).each` instead.
Loading