DOM Testing Library patterns for behavior-driven UI testing. Framework-agnostic patterns for testing user interfaces. Use when testing any front-end application.
Installation
Details
Usage
After installing, this skill will be available to your AI coding assistant.
Verify installation:
skills listSkill Instructions
name: front-end-testing description: DOM Testing Library patterns for behavior-driven UI testing. Framework-agnostic patterns for testing user interfaces. Use when testing any front-end application.
Front-End Testing with DOM Testing Library
This skill focuses on framework-agnostic DOM Testing Library patterns that work across React, Vue, Svelte, and other frameworks. For React-specific patterns (renderHook, context, components), load the react-testing skill. For TDD workflow (RED-GREEN-REFACTOR), load the tdd skill. For general testing patterns (factories, public API testing), load the testing skill.
Core Philosophy
Test behavior users see, not implementation details.
Testing Library exists to solve a fundamental problem: tests that break when you refactor (false negatives) and tests that pass when bugs exist (false positives).
Two Types of Users
Your UI components have two users:
- End-users: Interact through the DOM (clicks, typing, reading text)
- Developers: You, refactoring implementation
Kent C. Dodds principle: "The more your tests resemble the way your software is used, the more confidence they can give you."
Why This Matters
False negatives (tests break on refactor):
// ❌ WRONG - Testing implementation (will break on refactor)
it('should update internal state', () => {
const component = new CounterComponent();
component.setState({ count: 5 }); // Coupled to state implementation
expect(component.state.count).toBe(5);
});
False positives (bugs pass tests):
// ❌ WRONG - Testing wrong thing
it('should render button', () => {
render('<button data-testid="submit-btn">Submit</button>');
expect(screen.getByTestId('submit-btn')).toBeInTheDocument();
// Button exists but onClick is broken - test passes!
});
Correct approach (behavior-driven):
// ✅ CORRECT - Testing user-visible behavior
it('should submit form when user clicks submit', async () => {
const handleSubmit = vi.fn();
const user = userEvent.setup();
render(`
<form id="login-form">
<label>Email: <input name="email" /></label>
<label>Password: <input name="password" type="password" /></label>
<button type="submit">Submit</button>
</form>
`);
document.getElementById('login-form').addEventListener('submit', (e) => {
e.preventDefault();
handleSubmit(new FormData(e.target));
});
await user.type(screen.getByLabelText(/email/i), 'test@example.com');
await user.type(screen.getByLabelText(/password/i), 'password123');
await user.click(screen.getByRole('button', { name: /submit/i }));
expect(handleSubmit).toHaveBeenCalled();
});
This test:
- Survives refactoring (state → signals → stores)
- Tests the contract (what users see)
- Catches real bugs (broken onClick, validation errors)
Query Selection Priority
Most critical Testing Library skill: choosing the right query.
Priority Order
Use queries in this order (accessibility-first):
-
getByRole- Highest priority- Queries by ARIA role + accessible name
- Mirrors screen reader experience
- Forces semantic HTML
-
getByLabelText- Form fields- Finds inputs by associated
<label> - Ensures accessible forms
- Finds inputs by associated
-
getByPlaceholderText- Fallback for inputs- Only when label not present
- Placeholder shouldn't replace label
-
getByText- Non-interactive content- Headings, paragraphs, list items
- Content users read
-
getByDisplayValue- Current form values- Inputs with pre-filled values
-
getByAltText- Images- Ensures accessible images
-
getByTitle- SVG titles, title attributes- Rare, when other queries unavailable
-
getByTestId- Last resort only- When no other query works
- Not user-facing
Query Variants
Three variants for every query:
getBy* - Element must exist (throws if not found)
// ✅ Use when asserting element EXISTS
const button = screen.getByRole('button', { name: /submit/i });
expect(button).toBeDisabled();
queryBy* - Returns null if not found
// ✅ Use when asserting element DOESN'T exist
expect(screen.queryByRole('dialog')).not.toBeInTheDocument();
// ❌ WRONG - getBy throws, can't assert non-existence
expect(() => screen.getByRole('dialog')).toThrow(); // Ugly!
findBy* - Async, waits for element to appear
// ✅ Use when element appears after async operation
const message = await screen.findByText(/success/i);
Common Mistakes
❌ Using container.querySelector
const button = container.querySelector('.submit-button'); // DOM implementation detail
✅ CORRECT - Query by accessible role
const button = screen.getByRole('button', { name: /submit/i }); // User-facing
❌ Using getByTestId when role available
screen.getByTestId('submit-button'); // Not how users find button
✅ CORRECT - Query by role
screen.getByRole('button', { name: /submit/i }); // How screen readers find it
❌ Not using accessible names
screen.getByRole('button'); // Which button? Multiple on page!
✅ CORRECT - Specify accessible name
screen.getByRole('button', { name: /submit/i }); // Specific button
❌ Using getBy to assert non-existence
expect(() => screen.getByText(/error/i)).toThrow(); // Awkward
✅ CORRECT - Use queryBy
expect(screen.queryByText(/error/i)).not.toBeInTheDocument();
User Event Simulation
Always use userEvent over fireEvent for realistic interactions.
userEvent vs fireEvent
Why userEvent is superior:
- Simulates complete interaction sequence (hover → focus → click → blur)
- Triggers all associated events
- Respects browser timing and order
- Catches more bugs
// ❌ WRONG - fireEvent (incomplete simulation)
fireEvent.change(input, { target: { value: 'test' } });
fireEvent.click(button);
// ✅ CORRECT - userEvent (realistic simulation)
const user = userEvent.setup();
await user.type(input, 'test');
await user.click(button);
Only use fireEvent when:
userEventdoesn't support the event (rare)- Testing non-standard browser behavior
userEvent.setup() Pattern
Modern best practice (2025):
// ✅ CORRECT - Setup per test
it('should handle user input', async () => {
const user = userEvent.setup(); // Fresh instance per test
render('<input aria-label="Email" />');
await user.type(screen.getByLabelText(/email/i), 'test@example.com');
});
// ❌ WRONG - Setup in beforeEach
let user;
beforeEach(() => {
user = userEvent.setup(); // Shared state across tests
});
it('test 1', async () => {
await user.click(...); // Might affect test 2
});
Why: Each test gets clean state, prevents test interdependence.
Common Interactions
Clicking:
const user = userEvent.setup();
await user.click(screen.getByRole('button', { name: /submit/i }));
Typing:
await user.type(screen.getByLabelText(/email/i), 'test@example.com');
Keyboard:
await user.keyboard('{Enter}'); // Press Enter
await user.keyboard('{Shift>}A{/Shift}'); // Shift+A
Selecting options:
await user.selectOptions(
screen.getByLabelText(/country/i),
'USA'
);
Clearing input:
await user.clear(screen.getByLabelText(/search/i));
Async Testing Patterns
UI frameworks are async by nature (state updates, API calls, suspense). Testing Library provides utilities for async scenarios.
findBy Queries
Built-in async queries (combines getBy + waitFor):
// ✅ CORRECT - Wait for element to appear
const message = await screen.findByText(/success/i);
// Under the hood: retries getByText until it succeeds or timeout
When to use:
- Element appears after async operation
- Loading states disappear
- API responses render content
Configuration:
// Default: 1000ms timeout
const message = await screen.findByText(/success/i);
// Custom timeout
const message = await screen.findByText(/success/i, {}, { timeout: 3000 });
waitFor Utility
For complex conditions that findBy can't handle:
// ✅ CORRECT - Complex assertion
await waitFor(() => {
expect(screen.getByText(/loaded/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
});
// ✅ CORRECT - Multiple elements
await waitFor(() => {
expect(screen.getAllByRole('listitem')).toHaveLength(10);
});
waitFor retries until:
- Assertion passes (doesn't throw)
- Timeout reached (default 1000ms)
Common mistakes:
❌ Side effects in waitFor
await waitFor(() => {
fireEvent.click(button); // Side effect! Will click multiple times
expect(result).toBe(true);
});
✅ CORRECT - Only assertions
fireEvent.click(button); // Outside waitFor
await waitFor(() => {
expect(result).toBe(true); // Only assertion
});
❌ Multiple assertions
await waitFor(() => {
expect(screen.getByText(/name/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
expect(screen.getByText(/email/i)).toBeInTheDocument(); // Might not retry both
});
✅ CORRECT - Single assertion per waitFor
await waitFor(() => {
expect(screen.getByText(/name/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
});
expect(screen.getByText(/email/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
❌ Wrapping findBy in waitFor
await waitFor(() => screen.findByText(/success/i)); // Redundant!
✅ CORRECT - findBy already waits
await screen.findByText(/success/i);
waitForElementToBeRemoved
For disappearance scenarios:
// ✅ CORRECT - Wait for loading spinner to disappear
await waitForElementToBeRemoved(() => screen.queryByText(/loading/i));
// ✅ CORRECT - Wait for modal to close
await waitForElementToBeRemoved(() => screen.queryByRole('dialog'));
Note: Must use queryBy* (returns null) not getBy* (throws).
Common Patterns
Loading states:
render('<div id="container"></div>');
// Simulate async data loading
const container = document.getElementById('container');
container.innerHTML = '<p>Loading...</p>';
// Initially loading
expect(screen.getByText(/loading/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
// Simulate data load
setTimeout(() => {
container.innerHTML = '<p>John Doe</p>';
}, 100);
// Wait for data
await screen.findByText(/john doe/i);
// Loading gone
expect(screen.queryByText(/loading/i)).not.toBeInTheDocument();
API responses:
const user = userEvent.setup();
render(`
<form>
<label>Search: <input name="search" /></label>
<button type="submit">Search</button>
<ul id="results"></ul>
</form>
`);
await user.type(screen.getByLabelText(/search/i), 'react');
await user.click(screen.getByRole('button', { name: /search/i }));
// Wait for results (after API response)
await waitFor(() => {
expect(screen.getAllByRole('listitem')).toHaveLength(10);
});
Debounced inputs:
const user = userEvent.setup();
render(`
<label>Search: <input id="search" /></label>
<ul id="suggestions"></ul>
`);
await user.type(screen.getByLabelText(/search/i), 'react');
// Wait for debounced suggestions
await screen.findByText(/react testing library/i);
MSW Integration
Mock Service Worker for API-level mocking.
Why MSW
Network-level interception:
- Intercepts requests at network layer (not fetch/axios mocks)
- Same mocks work in tests, Storybook, development
- No client-specific mocking logic
- Tests real request logic
// ❌ WRONG - Mocking fetch implementation
vi.spyOn(global, 'fetch').mockResolvedValue({
json: async () => ({ users: [...] }),
}); // Tight coupling, won't work in Storybook
// ✅ CORRECT - MSW intercepts at network level
// Works in tests, Storybook, dev server
http.get('/api/users', () => {
return HttpResponse.json({ users: [...] });
});
setupServer Pattern
In test setup file:
// test-setup.ts
import { setupServer } from 'msw/node';
import { handlers } from './mocks/handlers';
export const server = setupServer(...handlers);
beforeAll(() => server.listen());
afterEach(() => server.resetHandlers());
afterAll(() => server.close());
In handlers file:
// mocks/handlers.ts
import { http, HttpResponse } from 'msw';
export const handlers = [
http.get('/api/users', () => {
return HttpResponse.json({
users: [
{ id: 1, name: 'Alice' },
{ id: 2, name: 'Bob' },
],
});
}),
];
Per-Test Overrides
Override handlers for specific tests:
it('should handle API error', async () => {
// Override for this test only
server.use(
http.get('/api/users', () => {
return HttpResponse.json(
{ error: 'Server error' },
{ status: 500 }
);
})
);
render('<div id="user-list"></div>');
// Simulate component fetching users
fetch('/api/users').then(() => {
document.getElementById('user-list').innerHTML =
'<p>Failed to load users</p>';
});
await screen.findByText(/failed to load users/i);
});
After test, afterEach resets to default handlers.
Accessibility-First Testing
Why Accessible Queries
Three benefits:
- Tests mirror real usage - Query like screen readers do
- Improves app accessibility - Tests force accessible markup
- Refactor-friendly - Coupled to user experience, not implementation
// ❌ WRONG - Implementation detail
screen.getByTestId('user-menu');
// ✅ CORRECT - Accessibility query
screen.getByRole('button', { name: /user menu/i });
If accessible query fails, your app has an accessibility issue.
ARIA Attributes
When to add ARIA:
✅ Custom components (where semantic HTML unavailable):
<div role="dialog" aria-label="Confirmation Dialog">
<h2>Are you sure?</h2>
...
</div>
Query:
screen.getByRole('dialog', { name: /confirmation/i });
❌ DON'T add to semantic HTML (redundant):
<!-- ❌ WRONG - Semantic HTML already has role -->
<button role="button">Submit</button>
<!-- ✅ CORRECT - Semantic HTML is enough -->
<button>Submit</button>
Semantic HTML Priority
Always prefer semantic HTML over ARIA:
<!-- ❌ WRONG - Custom element + ARIA -->
<div role="button" onclick="handleClick()" tabindex="0">
Submit
</div>
<!-- ✅ CORRECT - Semantic HTML -->
<button onclick="handleClick()">
Submit
</button>
Semantic HTML provides:
- Built-in keyboard navigation
- Built-in focus management
- Built-in screen reader support
- Less code, more accessibility
Testing Library Anti-Patterns
1. Not using screen object
❌ WRONG - Query from render result
const { getByRole } = render('<button>Submit</button>');
const button = getByRole('button');
✅ CORRECT - Use screen
render('<button>Submit</button>');
const button = screen.getByRole('button');
Why: screen is consistent, no destructuring, better error messages.
2. Using querySelector
❌ WRONG - DOM implementation
const { container } = render('<button class="submit-btn">Submit</button>');
const button = container.querySelector('.submit-btn');
✅ CORRECT - Accessible query
render('<button>Submit</button>');
const button = screen.getByRole('button', { name: /submit/i });
3. Testing implementation details
❌ WRONG - Internal state
const component = new Component();
expect(component._internalState).toBe('value'); // Private implementation
✅ CORRECT - User-visible behavior
render('<div id="output"></div>');
expect(screen.getByText(/value/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
4. Not using jest-dom matchers
❌ WRONG - Manual assertions
expect(button.disabled).toBe(true);
expect(element.classList.contains('active')).toBe(true);
✅ CORRECT - jest-dom matchers
expect(button).toBeDisabled();
expect(element).toHaveClass('active');
Install: npm install -D @testing-library/jest-dom
5. Manual cleanup() calls
❌ WRONG - Manual cleanup
afterEach(() => {
cleanup(); // Automatic in modern Testing Library!
});
✅ CORRECT - No cleanup needed
// Cleanup happens automatically
6. Wrong assertion methods
❌ WRONG - Property access
expect(input.value).toBe('test');
expect(checkbox.checked).toBe(true);
✅ CORRECT - jest-dom matchers
expect(input).toHaveValue('test');
expect(checkbox).toBeChecked();
7. beforeEach render pattern
❌ WRONG - Shared render in beforeEach
let button;
beforeEach(() => {
render('<button>Submit</button>');
button = screen.getByRole('button'); // Shared state
});
it('test 1', () => {
// Uses shared button from beforeEach
});
✅ CORRECT - Factory function per test
const renderButton = () => {
render('<button>Submit</button>');
return {
button: screen.getByRole('button'),
};
};
it('test 1', () => {
const { button } = renderButton(); // Fresh state
});
For factory patterns, see testing skill.
8. Multiple assertions in waitFor
❌ WRONG - Multiple assertions
await waitFor(() => {
expect(screen.getByText(/name/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
expect(screen.getByText(/email/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
});
✅ CORRECT - Single assertion per waitFor
await waitFor(() => {
expect(screen.getByText(/name/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
});
expect(screen.getByText(/email/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
9. Side effects in waitFor
❌ WRONG - Mutation in callback
await waitFor(() => {
fireEvent.click(button); // Clicks multiple times!
expect(result).toBe(true);
});
✅ CORRECT - Side effects outside
fireEvent.click(button);
await waitFor(() => {
expect(result).toBe(true);
});
10. Exact string matching
❌ WRONG - Fragile exact match
screen.getByText('Welcome, John Doe'); // Breaks on whitespace change
✅ CORRECT - Regex for flexibility
screen.getByText(/welcome.*john doe/i);
11. Wrong query variant for assertion
❌ WRONG - getBy for non-existence
expect(() => screen.getByText(/error/i)).toThrow();
✅ CORRECT - queryBy
expect(screen.queryByText(/error/i)).not.toBeInTheDocument();
12. Wrapping findBy in waitFor
❌ WRONG - Redundant
await waitFor(() => screen.findByText(/success/i));
✅ CORRECT - findBy already waits
await screen.findByText(/success/i);
13. Using testId when role available
❌ WRONG - testId
screen.getByTestId('submit-button');
✅ CORRECT - Role
screen.getByRole('button', { name: /submit/i });
14. Not installing ESLint plugins
Install these plugins:
npm install -D eslint-plugin-testing-library eslint-plugin-jest-dom
.eslintrc.js:
{
extends: [
'plugin:testing-library/dom', // For framework-agnostic
// OR 'plugin:testing-library/react' for React
'plugin:jest-dom/recommended',
],
}
Catches anti-patterns automatically.
Summary Checklist
Before merging UI tests, verify:
- Using
getByRoleas first choice for queries - Using
userEventwithsetup()(notfireEvent) - Using
screenobject for all queries (not destructuring from render) - Using
findBy*for async elements (loading, API responses) - Using
jest-dommatchers (toBeInTheDocument,toBeDisabled, etc.) - Testing behavior users see, not implementation details
- ESLint plugins installed (
eslint-plugin-testing-library,eslint-plugin-jest-dom) - No manual
cleanup()calls (automatic) - MSW for API mocking (not fetch/axios mocks)
- Following TDD workflow (see
tddskill) - Using test factories for data (see
testingskill) - For framework-specific patterns (React hooks, context, components), see
react-testingskill
More by citypaul
View allTypeScript strict mode patterns. Use when writing any TypeScript code.
Functional programming patterns with immutable data. Use when writing logic or data transformations.
Planning work in small, known-good increments. Use when starting significant work or breaking down complex tasks.
Test-Driven Development workflow. Use for ALL code changes - features, bug fixes, refactoring. TDD is non-negotiable.