Add Site Management UI integration tests

[gcsecsey]

Related issues

• Related to STU-1867
• companion to Add CLI integration test for site create (custom name, domain, HTTPS) #3947

How AI was used in this PR

Claude audited the existing renderer tests to find coverage gaps, and wrote the tests.

Proposed Changes

The Site Management e2e tests drive every action through the UI, which is slow, flaky, and couples coverage to the current renderer. These tests take the UI part of the CLI/UI split we agreed on in the huddle: they mount the real components and SiteDetailsProvider, mock only the IPC bridge, and assert the commands each user action generates. The CLI integration tests in #3947 cover the parameter variations and on-disk effects.

• Covers all nine Site Management smoke-sheet rows, plus custom domain and HTTPS.
• Adds coverage for site duplication, since there is no studio site duplicate command for the CLI suite to test.
• The delete cases now run on every platform (the old e2e versions were skipped on Windows).
• These supersede the hook-boundary assertions in the sibling unit tests, which can be retired in a follow-up.

Testing Instructions

• Run the three new suites:

npm test -- src/components/tests/content-tab-settings.actions.test.tsx src/modules/add-site/tests/create-site.actions.test.tsx src/modules/site-settings/tests/edit-site-details.actions.test.tsx

• Confirm all tests pass
• Run npm run typecheck and confirm there are no errors

Regression validation

I confirmed that these tests fail on a real regression and that they catch the same bug as the existing e2e suite. I made this change ran both suites:

diff --git a/apps/studio/src/hooks/use-delete-site.ts b/apps/studio/src/hooks/use-delete-site.ts
index 7cc117a1c..33055caa8 100644
--- a/apps/studio/src/hooks/use-delete-site.ts
+++ b/apps/studio/src/hooks/use-delete-site.ts
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ export function useDeleteSite() {

                if ( response === DELETE_BUTTON_INDEX ) {
                        try {
-                               await deleteSite( siteId, checkboxChecked );
+                               await deleteSite( siteId, ! checkboxChecked );
                        } catch ( error ) {
                                ipcApi.showErrorMessageBox( {
                                        title: __( 'Deletion failed' ),
EOF

Suite	Bug introduced (inverted delete-files flag)
Old e2e (sites.test.ts)
New UI integration tests

The existing unit tests mock the hook→IPC translation layer, so these aren't catching the introduced issue, only the existing e2e tests and the newly added integration tests are.

Pre-merge Checklist

• Have you checked for TypeScript, React or other console errors?

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Adds fast jsdom-based UI integration tests for Studio’s Site Management flows by mounting real renderer components/providers and asserting the IPC commands emitted for each user action (supporting the CLI/UI split testing strategy for STU-1867).

Changes:

• Added UI action tests for creating sites (suggested/custom name, default/custom path, custom domain + HTTPS) asserting getIpcApi().createSite(...) calls.
• Added UI action tests for editing site details (rename + PHP version change) asserting getIpcApi().updateSite(...) calls.
• Added UI action tests for duplicate and delete flows asserting getIpcApi().copySite(...) / getIpcApi().deleteSite(...) calls.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
apps/studio/src/modules/site-settings/tests/edit-site-details.actions.test.tsx	New integration-style tests asserting IPC calls for edit-site save + PHP version change.
apps/studio/src/modules/add-site/tests/create-site.actions.test.tsx	New integration-style tests asserting IPC calls for multiple site creation variants.
apps/studio/src/components/tests/content-tab-settings.actions.test.tsx	New integration-style tests asserting IPC calls for duplicate + delete behaviors from the settings tab.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[gavande1]

Great work @gcsecsey, thank you for working on this. I like the overall approach and direction.

One suggestion: as a quick proof of concept, it would be nice to intentionally break something in the components and confirm these tests actually fail. That gives us confidence they catch real regressions and are not passing vacuously.

[gcsecsey]

Great work @gcsecsey, thank you for working on this. I like the overall approach and direction.

One suggestion: as a quick proof of concept, it would be nice to intentionally break something in the components and confirm these tests actually fail. That gives us confidence they catch real regressions and are not passing vacuously.

Good suggestion, thanks! I added a section on this to the description. I could introduce an error and catch it with both the existing e2e and the new UI tests, but not the existing unit tests. 👍

[gcsecsey]

Hey @fredrikekelund could you also take a look at the approach in this PR and in #3947 and let us know what you think? Thanks!

[fredrikekelund]

The actual test implementations here look pretty good to me. The IPC mocking is quite small, and is effectively quite similar to a nock interceptor, so I like that part.

Zooming out for a moment, though, I do wonder if it is really worth spending the time to refactor apps/studio E2E tests in this way if we expect to move to a new UI soon anyway?

The existing E2E tests are slow, but they do work well. It seems more valuable to either write similar tests for the new UI or work on actually migrating the app to the new UI.

I get that this PR in combination with #3947 is a kind of mock-end-to-end testing suite. It's an OK strategy for speedier CI runs, but not so good as to warrant replacing the existing E2E suite, IMO. We loose the true end-to-end part while spending time rewriting tests for a solution that'll most likely be scrapped soon anyway.

there is no studio site duplicate command for the CLI suite to test

Maybe worth adding a Linear issue?