fix: update e2e graph-styling test for no-label default

[robfrank]

Summary

• Fix failing should display HTML labels correctly e2e test in graph-styling.spec.ts
• The studio refactor (b1a0093) changed the default to no labels on graph nodes, but the test still asserted non-empty labels
• Updated test to verify label property existence and type assignment instead of asserting non-empty label text

Test plan

• Run npx playwright test tests/graph-styling.spec.ts in e2e-studio/ to verify the test passes
• Confirm other graph-styling tests still pass

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a failing end-to-end test in the graph styling suite. The test was updated to align with a recent change in the application's default behavior, where graph nodes no longer display labels by default. The revised test now correctly validates the structural properties of graph nodes, ensuring their data integrity without imposing outdated expectations on label content.

Highlights

• Test Fix: Fixed a failing end-to-end test named should display HTML labels correctly in graph-styling.spec.ts.
• Root Cause: The test failed because a recent studio refactor (b1a0093) changed the default behavior of graph nodes to no longer display labels, while the test still asserted the presence of non-empty labels.
• Test Logic Update: Updated the test to verify the existence of the 'label' property and the assignment of a 'type' property on graph nodes, rather than asserting that the label text itself is non-empty.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[mergify]

🧪 CI Insights

Here's what we observed from your CI run for 7a8d694.

🟢 All jobs passed!

But CI Insights is watching 👀

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request fixes a failing e2e test in graph-styling.spec.ts. The test was asserting that node labels are not empty, but a recent change made empty labels the default. The fix correctly updates the test to check for the existence of the label property on nodes and also adds a check for the node type. The changes are logical and address the issue. I've added one suggestion to improve efficiency within the page.evaluate call by caching the result of node.data().

[gemini-code-assist]

For improved efficiency, it's a good practice to call node.data() only once per node within the map callback. You can store the result in a local variable and reuse it to access the different data properties. This avoids redundant calls to retrieve the same data object for each property.

      return nodes.map(node => {
        const data = node.data();
        return {
          id: node.id(),
          label: data.label,
          type: data.type,
          hasLabelProp: 'label' in data
        };
      });

[claude]

Code Review

This is a straightforward fix to keep the e2e test suite green after the studio refactor (b1a0093) changed the default to no labels on graph nodes. The change is small and focused.

What works well

• The fix correctly adapts assertions to match the new "no label by default" behavior
• Adding the allHaveType check is a useful regression assertion (ensures the graph engine still assigns types to nodes)
• The PR is well-scoped to a single file change

Concerns

Test name vs. test intent mismatch

The test is named should display HTML labels correctly, but after this change it no longer verifies anything about HTML label display. It now only checks: (1) the label property key exists in node data even if empty, and (2) each node has a non-empty type. Neither assertion verifies that HTML labels render correctly. The htmlLabelsSupported variable is still computed and logged, but never asserted on.

If there is no meaningful way to test HTML label rendering with the new default, consider either renaming the test to better reflect what it now actually checks (e.g., should expose label and type properties on graph nodes), or restructuring to first enable label display and then assert label content.

hasLabelProp check may be trivially true

'label' in node.data() will be true as long as Cytoscape.js initializes the data object with a label key (even set to undefined or null). Depending on how graph data is loaded, this might never fail regardless of what the studio does. If the intent is to detect regressions where the label property is dropped entirely from node data initialization, a comment explaining that intent would help.

Summary

The fix is pragmatic and unblocks the test suite. The main suggestion is to either rename the test to match its new scope, or invest in a more meaningful assertion about HTML label rendering as a follow-up. As-is, the test provides weak coverage of its stated intent.

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ -9.32%	✅ ∅

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (6cd1f08)	110408	82424	74.65%
Head commit (7a8d694)	141352 (+30944)	92347 (+9923)	65.33% (-9.32%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#3677)	0	0	∅ (not applicable)

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 65.87%. Comparing base (6cd1f08) to head (7a8d694).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3677      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   65.79%   65.87%   +0.08%     
==========================================
  Files        1555     1555              
  Lines      110408   110408              
  Branches    23064    23064              
==========================================
+ Hits        72642    72734      +92     
+ Misses      28010    27915      -95     
- Partials     9756     9759       +3     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.