CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

putio/frontend-test-harness

Design typed frontend test harnesses, e2e checks, test automation, and QA proof loops for put.io web, extension, TV, native, emulator, simulator, and device surfaces.

72

Quality

90%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

platform-notes.mdreferences/

Platform Notes

Use these notes as starting points. Verify current platform tooling in the target repo before implementing.

Web And Browser Extensions

Likely tools:

  • Playwright or repo-local browser automation
  • extension pack/load tooling
  • dev server or preview server commands
  • browser logs, screenshots, traces, and network captures

Common harness concerns:

  • dev server boot readiness
  • authenticated session setup without using the human's browser profile
  • route, deeplink, and extension entrypoint coverage
  • extension permissions, service worker lifecycle, and content-script injection state
  • reliable screenshots and traces for visual or startup failures

Good proof:

  • surface boots through a single command
  • smoke check proves the app or extension is alive
  • route or extension entrypoint opens the expected product flow
  • screenshot, trace, console log, or runtime state dump is saved with the summary

iOS / Android Native

Likely tools:

  • Xcode command-line tooling, simctl, XCTest, or UI test runners
  • Gradle, Android adb, UI Automator, accessibility dumps, logcat, and screencap
  • emulator, simulator, hardware, or cloud-device provider CLIs

Common harness concerns:

  • simulator or emulator boot readiness
  • install, launch, deeplink, intent, and launch-argument support
  • app reinstall wiping local session state
  • auth/session seeding through approved development hooks
  • logs, screenshots, and accessibility state that explain failures

Good proof:

  • app installs or launches on the selected target
  • auth/session readiness is checked before the product flow starts
  • deeplink or launch argument opens the expected route
  • UI/accessibility state supports assertions
  • screenshot and log excerpt are saved with the summary

Tizen

Likely tools:

  • Tizen CLI
  • sdb
  • certificate/profile tooling

Common harness concerns:

  • signing profiles and certificate passwords
  • device discovery and developer mode
  • packaging paths and app identifiers
  • install and launch commands that fail with terse vendor output
  • logs through sdb
  • screenshots when the device/toolchain supports them

Good proof:

  • package artifact exists
  • install command succeeds on the selected device
  • app launches foregrounded
  • logs show startup or an expected marker
  • screenshot or runtime signal confirms the app is visible

Roku

Likely tools:

  • roku-deploy
  • Roku External Control Protocol
  • SceneGraph or app debug query surfaces when available

Common harness concerns:

  • device IP and developer password stay local
  • sideload packaging and install state
  • launch parameters and deeplinks
  • keypress timing
  • focus and playback state
  • screenshots and review HTML for visual proof

Good proof:

  • app launches through ECP
  • route or screen assertion passes
  • keypress sequence reaches expected focus
  • playback responds to media keys
  • screenshot and logs are attached to the run summary

Android TV

Likely tools:

  • Android adb
  • Gradle or repo-local build commands
  • emulator manager or cloud-device provider CLI
  • UI Automator, accessibility dumps, logcat, and screencap

Common harness concerns:

  • emulator boot readiness
  • device selection when multiple targets are attached
  • package install and activity launch
  • deeplinks and intents
  • focus navigation with DPAD keys
  • logcat noise filtering
  • screenshot and screenrecord artifacts

Good proof:

  • package installs on a selected target
  • activity launches foregrounded
  • deeplink opens the expected route
  • UI dump or accessibility state supports assertions
  • screenshot/logcat excerpt is saved with the summary

Apple TV / tvOS

Likely tools:

  • Xcode command-line tooling
  • simctl for simulators
  • XCTest or UI test runners
  • repo-local build scripts for signing and provisioning

Common harness concerns:

  • simulator versus hardware support
  • provisioning, signing, and team IDs
  • app install and launch
  • remote/button events through XCTest or simulator tooling
  • screenshots and logs
  • video/playback assertions that may need app test hooks

Good proof:

  • build target succeeds for simulator or hardware
  • app installs and launches
  • focused route or screen assertion passes
  • screenshot is saved
  • logs or XCTest output explain failures

Keep signing identities, provisioning profiles, device identifiers, and account facts outside git.

Future Weird Platforms

For webOS, game consoles, set-top boxes, browser-kiosk environments, or vendor clouds, start from the same architecture:

  • platform adapter wraps the vendor control surface
  • CLI/API exposes narrow typed commands
  • runtime driver performs launch, input, state, and artifact collection
  • assertions target stable user-visible behavior
  • proof artifacts make the run reviewable
  • repo integration makes setup and smoke checks repeatable

If the platform cannot expose runtime state, say so plainly and design around stronger visual, log, or transcript evidence.

references

examples.md

harness-pattern.md

platform-notes.md

SKILL.md

tile.json