Convert accessibility options unit tests to Vue Testing Library #5794

[LightCreator1007]

Summary

• Migrated to vue-testing-library.
• Adhered to VTL's query priorities whenever and wherever possible (example: using getByRole instead of getByTestId).
• Added new user-interaction test, to explicitly test the checking and uncjecing of options and verifying v-model emissions.

Screencast.From.2026-05-09.20-37-55.mp4

References

Closes #5794

Reviewer guidance

• Run

  pnpm test channelEdit/components/edit/__tests__/accessibilityOptions.spec.js

  to test whether all 10 tests are passing or not.

• Note on Tooltips: Tooltip elements currently seem to render as SVGs inside spans . So i thought of falling back to using getByTestId for the tooltip assertions.

AI usage

Code was adjusted, troubleshot and tested for bugs iteratively in collaboration with gemini and claude. Reviewed and audited to the best of my abilites to ensure integrity and correctness of code.

[learning-equality-bot]

👋 Hi @LightCreator1007, thanks for contributing!

For the review process to begin, please verify that the following is satisfied:

• Contribution is aligned with our contributing guidelines

• Pull request description has correctly filled AI usage section & follows our AI guidance:

  AI guidance

  
  

  State explicitly whether you didn't use or used AI & how.

  If you used it, ensure that the PR is aligned with Using AI as well as our DEEP framework. DEEP asks you:

  • Disclose — Be open about when you've used AI for support.
  • Engage critically — Question what is generated. Review code for correctness and unnecessary complexity.
  • Edit — Review and refine AI output. Remove unnecessary code and verify it still works after your edits.
  • Process sharing — Explain how you used the AI so others can learn.

  
  

  Examples of good disclosures:

  "I used Claude Code to implement the component, prompting it to follow the pattern in ComponentX. I reviewed the generated code, removed unnecessary error handling, and verified the tests pass."

  "I brainstormed the approach with Gemini, then had it write failing tests for the feature. After reviewing the tests, I used Claude Code to generate the implementation. I refactored the output to reduce verbosity and ran the full test suite."

Also check that issue requirements are satisfied & you ran pre-commit locally.

Pull requests that don't follow the guidelines will be closed.

Reviewer assignment can take up to 2 weeks.

[learning-equality-bot]

📢✨ Before we assign a reviewer, we'll turn on @rtibblesbot to pre-review. Its comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly.

[rtibblesbot]

Clean VTL migration with real improvements over the original.

CI passing. No UI files changed — Phase 3 skipped. Screenshot and video confirm the Accessibility section in the Edit Details modal, matching what the tests cover.

• suggestion: mockConstantsMixin = {} is a no-op — see inline
• suggestion: audio test drops tooltip-absence assertion from original — see inline
• nitpick: v-model in describe block name — see inline
• praise: semantic role queries and new interaction coverage — see inline

---

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Reviewed the pull request diff checking for:

• Correctness: bugs, edge cases, undocumented behavior, resource leaks, hardcoded values
• Design: unnecessary complexity, naming, readability, comment accuracy, redundant state
• Architecture: duplicated concerns, minimal interfaces, composition over inheritance
• Testing: behavior-based assertions, mocks only at hard boundaries, accurate coverage
• Completeness: missing dependencies, unupdated usages, i18n, accessibility, security
• Principles: DRY (same reason to change), SRP, Rule of Three (no premature abstraction)
• Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria
• For UI changes: inspected screenshots for layout, visual completeness, and consistency

[rtibblesbot]

Prior findings

Resolved:

• Empty mockConstantsMixin in mixins array (suggestion) — removed entirely
• Audio test missing queryByTestId('tooltip-captionsSubtitles') absence assertion (suggestion) — added at line 88
• 'User Interactions and v-model' describe block name (nitpick) — simplified to 'User Interactions'

3/3 prior findings resolved. 0 re-raised.

---

All three suggestions addressed cleanly. CI failures (JS Tests, Linting, Build) are a repo-wide infrastructure issue — pnpm requires Node.js ≥ 22.13 but CI runners are on v20.20.2; the Use Node.js step fails before any PR code runs. This is not caused by this PR.

• praise: interaction tests replaced within(getByTestId(...)).getByRole('checkbox') with direct getByRole — see inline

---

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Compared the current PR state against findings from a prior review:

• Retrieved prior bot reviews deterministically via the GitHub API
• Classified each prior finding as RESOLVED, UNADDRESSED, ACKNOWLEDGED, or CONTESTED
• Only raised NEW findings for newly introduced code
• Reviewed the pull request diff checking for correctness, design, architecture, testing, completeness, and adherence to DRY/SRP principles
• Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria