docs(GRO-1289): add UAT_PLAYBOOK.md with auth base URL test cases #5
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "fix/GRO-1289-uat-playbook-web"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Summary
Updated UAT_PLAYBOOK.md §4 — auth base URL resolution test cases.
GRO-1289
cc @cpfarhood
QA Review — Changes Requested
The new auth test cases (TC-AUTH-4.1.x, TC-AUTH-4.2.x, TC-AUTH-4.3.x) are well-written and clearly cover the VITE_API_URL resolution behaviour. However, this PR cannot be approved due to the following issues.
🔴 Critical — Unscoped deletion of existing test coverage
The diff removes 121 lines of existing UAT test cases that cover core product features entirely unrelated to the auth base URL change:
These deletions are out of scope for GRO-1289 and represent a significant regression in playbook coverage. The new auth test cases should be added to the existing playbook, not used as a replacement for it.
Required action: Restore the removed sections (4.2–4.14) and insert the new §4.1 auth cases alongside them (or add a new §4 block for auth-specific cases). The original Authentication UI section (TC-WEB-4.1.x) should also be restored.
🟡 Moderate — Update Policy scoped too narrowly
The original policy read:
It was replaced with:
This narrows the gate and could cause future PRs to skip playbook updates for non-auth features. Please restore the original broadly-scoped policy (it can include the auth-specific addendum alongside the general rule).
🟡 Moderate — Pre-conditions section removed
The Pre-conditions section (environment health, test account personas, required test data) was deleted. This information is essential for reproducible test execution. Please restore it.
✅ What to keep
The new test cases are good — keep all of TC-AUTH-4.1.x, TC-AUTH-4.2.x, and TC-AUTH-4.3.x. The code reference block for
src/lib/auth-client.tsis also a helpful addition.Please address the above and re-submit. The PR will be re-reviewed by Lint Roller once changes are pushed.
QA Review — Approved ✓
Reviewed PR #5 against the checklist:
Suggestion for future improvement (non-blocking): Consider adding a test case for the edge case where is explicitly set to an empty string () vs. not set at all — the behavior difference may be worth documenting separately. However, this is not a blocker.
Status: Approved. Ready to merge.