mirror of
https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD.git
synced 2026-01-30 04:32:02 +00:00
Compare commits
3 Commits
e99a02f409
...
docs/tea-e
| Author | SHA1 | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
6674d2d165 | ||
|
|
fb84862851 | ||
|
|
4e116965a1 |
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ BMad does not mandate TEA. There are five valid ways to use it (or skip it). Pic
|
||||
2. **TEA-only (Standalone)**
|
||||
- Use TEA on a non-BMad project. Bring your own requirements, acceptance criteria, and environments.
|
||||
- Typical sequence: `*test-design` (system or epic) -> `*atdd` and/or `*automate` -> optional `*test-review` -> `*trace` for coverage and gate decisions.
|
||||
- Run `*framework` or `*ci` only if you want TEA to scaffold the harness or pipeline.
|
||||
- Run `*framework` or `*ci` only if you want TEA to scaffold the harness or pipeline; they work best after you decide the stack/architecture.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Integrated: Greenfield - BMad Method (Simple/Standard Work)**
|
||||
- Phase 3: system-level `*test-design`, then `*framework` and `*ci`.
|
||||
@@ -48,8 +48,29 @@ BMad does not mandate TEA. There are five valid ways to use it (or skip it). Pic
|
||||
|
||||
If you are unsure, default to the integrated path for your track and adjust later.
|
||||
|
||||
## TEA Command Catalog
|
||||
|
||||
| Command | Primary Outputs | Notes | With Playwright MCP Enhancements |
|
||||
| -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| `*framework` | Playwright/Cypress scaffold, `.env.example`, `.nvmrc`, sample specs | Use when no production-ready harness exists | - |
|
||||
| `*ci` | CI workflow, selective test scripts, secrets checklist | Platform-aware (GitHub Actions default) | - |
|
||||
| `*test-design` | Combined risk assessment, mitigation plan, and coverage strategy | Risk scoring + optional exploratory mode | **+ Exploratory**: Interactive UI discovery with browser automation (uncover actual functionality) |
|
||||
| `*atdd` | Failing acceptance tests + implementation checklist | TDD red phase + optional recording mode | **+ Recording**: AI generation verified with live browser (accurate selectors from real DOM) |
|
||||
| `*automate` | Prioritized specs, fixtures, README/script updates, DoD summary | Optional healing/recording, avoid duplicate coverage | **+ Healing**: Pattern fixes enhanced with visual debugging + **+ Recording**: AI verified with live browser |
|
||||
| `*test-review` | Test quality review report with 0-100 score, violations, fixes | Reviews tests against knowledge base patterns | - |
|
||||
| `*nfr-assess` | NFR assessment report with actions | Focus on security/performance/reliability | - |
|
||||
| `*trace` | Phase 1: Coverage matrix, recommendations. Phase 2: Gate decision (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL/WAIVED) | Two-phase workflow: traceability + gate decision | - |
|
||||
|
||||
## TEA Workflow Lifecycle
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase Numbering Note:** BMad uses a 4-phase methodology with optional Phase 1 and a documentation prerequisite:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Documentation** (Optional for brownfield): Prerequisite using `*document-project`
|
||||
- **Phase 1** (Optional): Discovery/Analysis (`*brainstorm`, `*research`, `*product-brief`)
|
||||
- **Phase 2** (Required): Planning (`*prd` creates PRD with FRs/NFRs)
|
||||
- **Phase 3** (Track-dependent): Solutioning (`*architecture` → `*test-design` (system-level) → `*create-epics-and-stories` → TEA: `*framework`, `*ci` → `*implementation-readiness`)
|
||||
- **Phase 4** (Required): Implementation (`*sprint-planning` → per-epic: `*test-design` → per-story: dev workflows)
|
||||
|
||||
TEA integrates into the BMad development lifecycle during Solutioning (Phase 3) and Implementation (Phase 4):
|
||||
|
||||
```mermaid
|
||||
@@ -132,62 +153,25 @@ graph TB
|
||||
style Waived fill:#9c27b0,stroke:#4a148c,stroke-width:3px,color:#000
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase Numbering Note:** BMad uses a 4-phase methodology with optional Phase 1 and documentation prerequisite:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Documentation** (Optional for brownfield): Prerequisite using `*document-project`
|
||||
- **Phase 1** (Optional): Discovery/Analysis (`*brainstorm`, `*research`, `*product-brief`)
|
||||
- **Phase 2** (Required): Planning (`*prd` creates PRD with FRs/NFRs)
|
||||
- **Phase 3** (Track-dependent): Solutioning (`*architecture` → `*test-design` (system-level) → `*create-epics-and-stories` → TEA: `*framework`, `*ci` → `*implementation-readiness`)
|
||||
- **Phase 4** (Required): Implementation (`*sprint-planning` → per-epic: `*test-design` → per-story: dev workflows)
|
||||
|
||||
**TEA workflows:** `*framework` and `*ci` run once in Phase 3 after architecture. `*test-design` is **dual-mode**:
|
||||
|
||||
- **System-level (Phase 3):** Run immediately after architecture/ADR drafting to produce `test-design-system.md` (testability review, ADR → test mapping, Architecturally Significant Requirements (ASRs), environment needs). Feeds the implementation-readiness gate.
|
||||
- **Epic-level (Phase 4):** Run per-epic to produce `test-design-epic-N.md` (risk, priorities, coverage plan).
|
||||
|
||||
Quick Flow track skips Phases 1 and 3.
|
||||
The Quick Flow track skips Phases 1 and 3.
|
||||
BMad Method and Enterprise use all phases based on project needs.
|
||||
When an ADR or architecture draft is produced, run `*test-design` in **system-level** mode before the implementation-readiness gate. This ensures the ADR has an attached testability review and ADR → test mapping. Keep the test-design updated if ADRs change.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why TEA is Different from Other BMM Agents
|
||||
## Why TEA Is Different from Other BMM Agents
|
||||
|
||||
TEA is the only BMM agent that operates in **multiple phases** (Phase 3 and Phase 4) and has its own **knowledge base architecture**.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase-Specific Agents (Standard Pattern)
|
||||
|
||||
Most BMM agents work in a single phase:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Phase 1 (Analysis)**: Analyst agent
|
||||
- **Phase 2 (Planning)**: PM agent
|
||||
- **Phase 3 (Solutioning)**: Architect agent
|
||||
- **Phase 4 (Implementation)**: SM, DEV agents
|
||||
|
||||
### TEA: Multi-Phase Quality Agent (Unique Pattern)
|
||||
|
||||
TEA is **the only agent that operates in multiple phases**:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Phase 1 (Analysis) → [TEA not typically used]
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Phase 2 (Planning) → [PM defines requirements - TEA not active]
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Phase 3 (Solutioning) → TEA: *framework, *ci (test infrastructure AFTER architecture)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Phase 4 (Implementation) → TEA: *test-design (per epic: "how do I test THIS feature?")
|
||||
→ TEA: *atdd, *automate, *test-review, *trace (per story)
|
||||
↓
|
||||
Epic/Release Gate → TEA: *nfr-assess, *trace Phase 2 (release decision)
|
||||
```
|
||||
TEA spans multiple phases (Phase 3, Phase 4, and the release gate). Most BMM agents operate in a single phase. That multi-phase role is paired with a dedicated testing knowledge base so standards stay consistent across projects.
|
||||
|
||||
### TEA's 8 Workflows Across Phases
|
||||
|
||||
**Standard agents**: 1-3 workflows per phase
|
||||
**TEA**: 8 workflows across Phase 3, Phase 4, and Release Gate
|
||||
|
||||
| Phase | TEA Workflows | Frequency | Purpose |
|
||||
| ----------- | --------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------- | ---------------------------------------------- |
|
||||
| **Phase 2** | (none) | - | Planning phase - PM defines requirements |
|
||||
| **Phase 3** | \*framework, \*ci | Once per project | Setup test infrastructure AFTER architecture |
|
||||
| **Phase 3** | \*test-design (system-level), \*framework, \*ci | Once per project | System testability review and test infrastructure setup |
|
||||
| **Phase 4** | \*test-design, \*atdd, \*automate, \*test-review, \*trace | Per epic/story | Test planning per epic, then per-story testing |
|
||||
| **Release** | \*nfr-assess, \*trace (Phase 2: gate) | Per epic/release | Go/no-go decision |
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -197,17 +181,17 @@ Epic/Release Gate → TEA: *nfr-assess, *trace Phase 2 (release decision)
|
||||
|
||||
TEA uniquely requires:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Extensive domain knowledge**: 30+ fragments covering test patterns, CI/CD, fixtures, quality practices, and optional playwright-utils integration
|
||||
- **Cross-cutting concerns**: Domain-specific testing patterns that apply across all BMad projects (vs project-specific artifacts like PRDs/stories)
|
||||
- **Optional integrations**: MCP capabilities (exploratory, verification) and playwright-utils support
|
||||
- **Extensive domain knowledge**: Test patterns, CI/CD, fixtures, and quality practices
|
||||
- **Cross-cutting concerns**: Standards that apply across all BMad projects (not just PRDs or stories)
|
||||
- **Optional integrations**: Playwright-utils and MCP enhancements
|
||||
|
||||
This architecture enables TEA to maintain consistent, production-ready testing patterns across all BMad projects while operating across multiple development phases.
|
||||
This architecture lets TEA maintain consistent, production-ready testing patterns while operating across multiple phases.
|
||||
|
||||
## High-Level Cheat Sheets
|
||||
## Track Cheat Sheets (Condensed)
|
||||
|
||||
These cheat sheets map TEA workflows to the **BMad Method and Enterprise tracks** across the **4-Phase Methodology** (Phase 1: Analysis, Phase 2: Planning, Phase 3: Solutioning, Phase 4: Implementation).
|
||||
|
||||
**Note:** Quick Flow projects typically don't require TEA (covered in Overview). These cheat sheets focus on BMad Method and Enterprise tracks where TEA adds value.
|
||||
**Note:** The Quick Flow track typically doesn't require TEA (covered in Overview). These cheat sheets focus on BMad Method and Enterprise tracks where TEA adds value.
|
||||
|
||||
**Legend for Track Deltas:**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -231,39 +215,15 @@ These cheat sheets map TEA workflows to the **BMad Method and Enterprise tracks*
|
||||
| **Phase 4**: Story Review | Execute `*test-review` (optional), re-run `*trace` | Address recommendations, update code/tests | Quality report, refreshed coverage matrix |
|
||||
| **Phase 4**: Release Gate | (Optional) `*test-review` for final audit, Run `*trace` (Phase 2) | Confirm Definition of Done, share release notes | Quality audit, Gate YAML + release summary |
|
||||
|
||||
<details>
|
||||
<summary>Execution Notes</summary>
|
||||
|
||||
- Run `*framework` only once per repo or when modern harness support is missing.
|
||||
- **Phase 3 (Solutioning)**: After architecture is complete, run `*framework` and `*ci` to setup test infrastructure based on architectural decisions.
|
||||
- **Phase 4 starts**: After solutioning is complete, sprint planning loads all epics.
|
||||
- **`*test-design` runs per-epic**: At the beginning of working on each epic, run `*test-design` to create a test plan for THAT specific epic/feature. Output: `test-design-epic-N.md`.
|
||||
- Use `*atdd` before coding when the team can adopt ATDD; share its checklist with the dev agent.
|
||||
- Post-implementation, keep `*trace` current, expand coverage with `*automate`, optionally review test quality with `*test-review`. For release gate, run `*trace` with Phase 2 enabled to get deployment decision.
|
||||
- Use `*test-review` after `*atdd` to validate generated tests, after `*automate` to ensure regression quality, or before gate for final audit.
|
||||
- Clarification: `*test-review` is optional and only audits existing tests; run it after `*atdd` or `*automate` when you want a quality review, not as a required step.
|
||||
- Clarification: `*atdd` outputs are not auto-consumed; share the ATDD doc/tests with the dev workflow. `*trace` does not run `*atdd`—it evaluates existing artifacts for coverage and gate readiness.
|
||||
- Clarification: `*ci` is a one-time setup; recommended early (Phase 3 or before feature work), but it can be done later if it was skipped.
|
||||
|
||||
</details>
|
||||
|
||||
<details>
|
||||
<summary>Worked Example – “Nova CRM” Greenfield Feature</summary>
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Planning (Phase 2):** Analyst runs `*product-brief`; PM executes `*prd` to produce PRD with FRs/NFRs.
|
||||
2. **Solutioning (Phase 3):** Architect completes `*architecture` for the new module; `*create-epics-and-stories` generates epics/stories based on architecture; TEA sets up test infrastructure via `*framework` and `*ci` based on architectural decisions; gate check validates planning completeness.
|
||||
3. **Sprint Start (Phase 4):** Scrum Master runs `*sprint-planning` to load all epics into sprint status.
|
||||
4. **Epic 1 Planning (Phase 4):** TEA runs `*test-design` to create test plan for Epic 1, producing `test-design-epic-1.md` with risk assessment.
|
||||
5. **Story Implementation (Phase 4):** For each story in Epic 1, SM generates story via `*create-story`; TEA optionally runs `*atdd`; Dev implements with guidance from failing tests.
|
||||
6. **Post-Dev (Phase 4):** TEA runs `*automate`, optionally `*test-review` to audit test quality, re-runs `*trace` to refresh coverage.
|
||||
7. **Release Gate:** TEA runs `*trace` with Phase 2 enabled to generate gate decision.
|
||||
|
||||
</details>
|
||||
**Key notes:**
|
||||
- Run `*framework` and `*ci` once in Phase 3 after architecture.
|
||||
- Run `*test-design` per epic in Phase 4; use `*atdd` before dev when helpful.
|
||||
- Use `*trace` for gate decisions; `*test-review` is an optional audit.
|
||||
|
||||
### Brownfield - BMad Method or Enterprise (Simple or Complex)
|
||||
|
||||
**Planning Tracks:** BMad Method or Enterprise Method
|
||||
**Use Case:** Existing codebases - simple additions (BMad Method) or complex enterprise requirements (Enterprise Method)
|
||||
**Use Case:** Existing codebases: simple additions (BMad Method) or complex enterprise requirements (Enterprise Method)
|
||||
|
||||
**🔄 Brownfield Deltas from Greenfield:**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -284,31 +244,10 @@ These cheat sheets map TEA workflows to the **BMad Method and Enterprise tracks*
|
||||
| **Phase 4**: Story Review | Apply `*test-review` (optional), re-run `*trace`, ➕ `*nfr-assess` if needed | Resolve gaps, update docs/tests | Quality report, refreshed coverage matrix, NFR report |
|
||||
| **Phase 4**: Release Gate | (Optional) `*test-review` for final audit, Run `*trace` (Phase 2) | Capture sign-offs, share release notes | Quality audit, Gate YAML + release summary |
|
||||
|
||||
<details>
|
||||
<summary>Execution Notes</summary>
|
||||
|
||||
- Lead with `*trace` during Planning (Phase 2) to baseline existing test coverage before architecture work begins.
|
||||
- **Phase 3 (Solutioning)**: After architecture is complete, run `*framework` and `*ci` to modernize test infrastructure. For brownfield, framework may need to integrate with or replace existing test setup.
|
||||
- **Phase 4 starts**: After solutioning is complete and sprint planning loads all epics.
|
||||
- **`*test-design` runs per-epic**: At the beginning of working on each epic, run `*test-design` to identify regression hotspots, integration risks, and mitigation strategies for THAT specific epic/feature. Output: `test-design-epic-N.md`.
|
||||
- Use `*atdd` when stories benefit from ATDD; otherwise proceed to implementation and rely on post-dev automation.
|
||||
- After development, expand coverage with `*automate`, optionally review test quality with `*test-review`, re-run `*trace` (Phase 2 for gate decision). Run `*nfr-assess` now if non-functional risks weren't addressed earlier.
|
||||
- Use `*test-review` to validate existing brownfield tests or audit new tests before gate.
|
||||
|
||||
</details>
|
||||
|
||||
<details>
|
||||
<summary>Worked Example – “Atlas Payments” Brownfield Story</summary>
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Planning (Phase 2):** PM executes `*prd` to create PRD with FRs/NFRs; TEA runs `*trace` to baseline existing coverage.
|
||||
2. **Solutioning (Phase 3):** Architect triggers `*architecture` capturing legacy payment flows and integration architecture; `*create-epics-and-stories` generates Epic 1 (Payment Processing) based on architecture; TEA sets up `*framework` and `*ci` based on architectural decisions; gate check validates planning.
|
||||
3. **Sprint Start (Phase 4):** Scrum Master runs `*sprint-planning` to load Epic 1 into sprint status.
|
||||
4. **Epic 1 Planning (Phase 4):** TEA runs `*test-design` for Epic 1 (Payment Processing), producing `test-design-epic-1.md` that flags settlement edge cases, regression hotspots, and mitigation plans.
|
||||
5. **Story Implementation (Phase 4):** For each story in Epic 1, SM generates story via `*create-story`; TEA runs `*atdd` producing failing Playwright specs; Dev implements with guidance from tests and checklist.
|
||||
6. **Post-Dev (Phase 4):** TEA applies `*automate`, optionally `*test-review` to audit test quality, re-runs `*trace` to refresh coverage.
|
||||
7. **Release Gate:** TEA performs `*nfr-assess` to validate SLAs, runs `*trace` with Phase 2 enabled to generate gate decision (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL).
|
||||
|
||||
</details>
|
||||
**Key notes:**
|
||||
- Start with `*trace` in Phase 2 to baseline coverage.
|
||||
- Focus `*test-design` on regression hotspots and integration risk.
|
||||
- Run `*nfr-assess` before the gate if it wasn't done earlier.
|
||||
|
||||
### Greenfield - Enterprise Method (Enterprise/Compliance Work)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -332,105 +271,36 @@ These cheat sheets map TEA workflows to the **BMad Method and Enterprise tracks*
|
||||
| **Phase 4**: Story Dev | (Optional) `*atdd`, `*automate`, `*test-review`, `*trace` per story | SM `*create-story`, DEV implements | Tests, fixtures, quality reports, coverage matrices |
|
||||
| **Phase 4**: Release Gate | Final `*test-review` audit, Run `*trace` (Phase 2), 📦 archive artifacts | Capture sign-offs, 📦 compliance evidence | Quality audit, updated assessments, gate YAML, 📦 audit trail |
|
||||
|
||||
<details>
|
||||
<summary>Execution Notes</summary>
|
||||
**Key notes:**
|
||||
- Run `*nfr-assess` early in Phase 2.
|
||||
- `*test-design` emphasizes compliance, security, and performance alignment.
|
||||
- Archive artifacts at the release gate for audits.
|
||||
|
||||
- `*nfr-assess` runs early in Planning (Phase 2) to capture compliance, security, and performance requirements upfront.
|
||||
- **Phase 3 (Solutioning)**: After architecture is complete, run `*framework` and `*ci` with enterprise-grade configurations (selective testing, burn-in jobs, caching, notifications).
|
||||
- **Phase 4 starts**: After solutioning is complete and sprint planning loads all epics.
|
||||
- **`*test-design` runs per-epic**: At the beginning of working on each epic, run `*test-design` to create an enterprise-focused test plan for THAT specific epic, ensuring alignment with security architecture, performance targets, and compliance requirements. Output: `test-design-epic-N.md`.
|
||||
- Use `*atdd` for stories when feasible so acceptance tests can lead implementation.
|
||||
- Use `*test-review` per story or sprint to maintain quality standards and ensure compliance with testing best practices.
|
||||
- Prior to release, rerun coverage (`*trace`, `*automate`), perform final quality audit with `*test-review`, and formalize the decision with `*trace` Phase 2 (gate decision); archive artifacts for compliance audits.
|
||||
**Related how-to guides:**
|
||||
- [How to Run Test Design](/docs/how-to/workflows/run-test-design.md)
|
||||
- [How to Set Up a Test Framework](/docs/how-to/workflows/setup-test-framework.md)
|
||||
|
||||
</details>
|
||||
## Optional Integrations
|
||||
|
||||
<details>
|
||||
<summary>Worked Example – “Helios Ledger” Enterprise Release</summary>
|
||||
### Playwright Utils (`@seontechnologies/playwright-utils`)
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Planning (Phase 2):** Analyst runs `*research` and `*product-brief`; PM completes `*prd` creating PRD with FRs/NFRs; TEA runs `*nfr-assess` to establish NFR targets.
|
||||
2. **Solutioning (Phase 3):** Architect completes `*architecture` with enterprise considerations; `*create-epics-and-stories` generates epics/stories based on architecture; TEA sets up `*framework` and `*ci` with enterprise-grade configurations based on architectural decisions; gate check validates planning completeness.
|
||||
3. **Sprint Start (Phase 4):** Scrum Master runs `*sprint-planning` to load all epics into sprint status.
|
||||
4. **Per-Epic (Phase 4):** For each epic, TEA runs `*test-design` to create epic-specific test plan (e.g., `test-design-epic-1.md`, `test-design-epic-2.md`) with compliance-focused risk assessment.
|
||||
5. **Per-Story (Phase 4):** For each story, TEA uses `*atdd`, `*automate`, `*test-review`, and `*trace`; Dev teams iterate on the findings.
|
||||
6. **Release Gate:** TEA re-checks coverage, performs final quality audit with `*test-review`, and logs the final gate decision via `*trace` Phase 2, archiving artifacts for compliance.
|
||||
Production-ready fixtures and utilities that enhance TEA workflows.
|
||||
|
||||
</details>
|
||||
- Install: `npm install -D @seontechnologies/playwright-utils`
|
||||
> Note: Playwright Utils is enabled via the installer. Only set `tea_use_playwright_utils` in `_bmad/bmm/config.yaml` if you need to override the installer choice.
|
||||
- Impacts: `*framework`, `*atdd`, `*automate`, `*test-review`, `*ci`
|
||||
- Utilities include: api-request, auth-session, network-recorder, intercept-network-call, recurse, log, file-utils, burn-in, network-error-monitor, fixtures-composition
|
||||
|
||||
## TEA Command Catalog
|
||||
### Playwright MCP Enhancements
|
||||
|
||||
| Command | Primary Outputs | Notes | With Playwright MCP Enhancements |
|
||||
| -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
||||
| `*framework` | Playwright/Cypress scaffold, `.env.example`, `.nvmrc`, sample specs | Use when no production-ready harness exists | - |
|
||||
| `*ci` | CI workflow, selective test scripts, secrets checklist | Platform-aware (GitHub Actions default) | - |
|
||||
| `*test-design` | Combined risk assessment, mitigation plan, and coverage strategy | Risk scoring + optional exploratory mode | **+ Exploratory**: Interactive UI discovery with browser automation (uncover actual functionality) |
|
||||
| `*atdd` | Failing acceptance tests + implementation checklist | TDD red phase + optional recording mode | **+ Recording**: AI generation verified with live browser (accurate selectors from real DOM) |
|
||||
| `*automate` | Prioritized specs, fixtures, README/script updates, DoD summary | Optional healing/recording, avoid duplicate coverage | **+ Healing**: Pattern fixes enhanced with visual debugging + **+ Recording**: AI verified with live browser |
|
||||
| `*test-review` | Test quality review report with 0-100 score, violations, fixes | Reviews tests against knowledge base patterns | - |
|
||||
| `*nfr-assess` | NFR assessment report with actions | Focus on security/performance/reliability | - |
|
||||
| `*trace` | Phase 1: Coverage matrix, recommendations. Phase 2: Gate decision (PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL/WAIVED) | Two-phase workflow: traceability + gate decision | - |
|
||||
|
||||
## Playwright Utils Integration
|
||||
|
||||
TEA optionally integrates with `@seontechnologies/playwright-utils`, an open-source library providing fixture-based utilities for Playwright tests. This integration enhances TEA's test generation and review workflows with production-ready patterns.
|
||||
|
||||
<details>
|
||||
<summary><strong>Installation & Configuration</strong></summary>
|
||||
|
||||
**Package**: `@seontechnologies/playwright-utils` ([npm](https://www.npmjs.com/package/@seontechnologies/playwright-utils) | [GitHub](https://github.com/seontechnologies/playwright-utils))
|
||||
|
||||
**Install**: `npm install -D @seontechnologies/playwright-utils`
|
||||
|
||||
**Enable during BMAD installation** by answering "Yes" when prompted, or manually set `tea_use_playwright_utils: true` in `_bmad/bmm/config.yaml`.
|
||||
|
||||
**To disable**: Set `tea_use_playwright_utils: false` in `_bmad/bmm/config.yaml`.
|
||||
|
||||
</details>
|
||||
|
||||
<details>
|
||||
<summary><strong>How Playwright Utils Enhances TEA Workflows</strong></summary>
|
||||
|
||||
1. `*framework`:
|
||||
- Default: Basic Playwright scaffold
|
||||
- **+ playwright-utils**: Scaffold with api-request, network-recorder, auth-session, burn-in, network-error-monitor fixtures pre-configured
|
||||
|
||||
Benefit: Production-ready patterns from day one
|
||||
|
||||
2. `*automate`, `*atdd`:
|
||||
- Default: Standard test patterns
|
||||
- **+ playwright-utils**: Tests using api-request (schema validation), intercept-network-call (mocking), recurse (polling), log (structured logging), file-utils (CSV/PDF)
|
||||
|
||||
Benefit: Advanced patterns without boilerplate
|
||||
|
||||
3. `*test-review`:
|
||||
- Default: Reviews against core knowledge base (22 fragments)
|
||||
- **+ playwright-utils**: Reviews against expanded knowledge base (33 fragments: 22 core + 11 playwright-utils)
|
||||
|
||||
Benefit: Reviews include fixture composition, auth patterns, network recording best practices
|
||||
|
||||
4. `*ci`:
|
||||
- Default: Standard CI workflow
|
||||
- **+ playwright-utils**: CI workflow with burn-in script (smart test selection) and network-error-monitor integration
|
||||
|
||||
Benefit: Faster CI feedback, HTTP error detection
|
||||
|
||||
**Utilities available** (10 total): api-request, network-recorder, auth-session, intercept-network-call, recurse, log, file-utils, burn-in, network-error-monitor, fixtures-composition
|
||||
|
||||
</details>
|
||||
|
||||
## Playwright MCP Enhancements
|
||||
|
||||
TEA can leverage Playwright MCP servers to enhance test generation with live browser verification. MCP provides interactive capabilities on top of TEA's default AI-based approach.
|
||||
|
||||
<details>
|
||||
<summary><strong>MCP Server Configuration</strong></summary>
|
||||
Live browser verification for test design and automation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Two Playwright MCP servers** (actively maintained, continuously updated):
|
||||
|
||||
- `playwright` - Browser automation (`npx @playwright/mcp@latest`)
|
||||
- `playwright-test` - Test runner with failure analysis (`npx playwright run-test-mcp-server`)
|
||||
|
||||
**Config example**:
|
||||
**Configuration example**:
|
||||
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
@@ -447,29 +317,8 @@ TEA can leverage Playwright MCP servers to enhance test generation with live bro
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**To disable**: Set `tea_use_mcp_enhancements: false` in `_bmad/bmm/config.yaml` OR remove MCPs from IDE config.
|
||||
- Helps `*test-design` validate actual UI behavior.
|
||||
- Helps `*atdd` and `*automate` verify selectors against the live DOM.
|
||||
- Enhances healing with `browser_snapshot`, console, network, and locator tools.
|
||||
|
||||
</details>
|
||||
|
||||
<details>
|
||||
<summary><strong>How MCP Enhances TEA Workflows</strong></summary>
|
||||
|
||||
1. `*test-design`:
|
||||
- Default: Analysis + documentation
|
||||
- **+ MCP**: Interactive UI discovery with `browser_navigate`, `browser_click`, `browser_snapshot`, behavior observation
|
||||
|
||||
Benefit: Discover actual functionality, edge cases, undocumented features
|
||||
|
||||
2. `*atdd`, `*automate`:
|
||||
- Default: Infers selectors and interactions from requirements and knowledge fragments
|
||||
- **+ MCP**: Generates tests **then** verifies with `generator_setup_page`, `browser_*` tools, validates against live app
|
||||
|
||||
Benefit: Accurate selectors from real DOM, verified behavior, refined test code
|
||||
|
||||
3. `*automate` (healing mode):
|
||||
- Default: Pattern-based fixes from error messages + knowledge fragments
|
||||
- **+ MCP**: Pattern fixes **enhanced with** `browser_snapshot`, `browser_console_messages`, `browser_network_requests`, `browser_generate_locator`
|
||||
|
||||
Benefit: Visual failure context, live DOM inspection, root cause discovery
|
||||
|
||||
</details>
|
||||
**To disable**: set `tea_use_mcp_enhancements: false` in `_bmad/bmm/config.yaml` or remove MCPs from IDE config.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user