test(frontend): cover the result-exportation and UI-UDF-parameters templates

[aglinxinyuan]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Both workspace templates go to 100% lines, branches and functions. 37 tests → 53.

Measured from frontend/ with ng test --coverage --coverage-reporters=lcovonly, the same spec-file filter on both sides, and rm -rf coverage between runs. lcov parsed with Codecov's model: DA=0 is missed, DA>0 with some BRDA arms at 0 is partial, and partial counts against the percentage.

Template	Before	After
result-exportation.component.html	60/67 = 89.6%, branches 9/18, functions 4/8	67/67 = 100%, branches 18/18, functions 8/8
ui-udf-parameters.component.html	40/46 = 87.0%, branches 6/8, functions 0/5	46/46 = 100%, branches 8/8, functions 5/5

+13 Codecov fully-covered lines, +11 branch arms, +9 functions.

Worth being precise about where that 13 comes from: the raw lcov line-hit delta is only +5. The other 8 lines move because Codecov counts a line with any unhit branch arm as missed. Both companion .ts files were already at 100% lines, branches and functions before and after, so nothing here is a .ts gain.

The ui-udf-parameters function counter is the one I would point a reviewer at: zero of its five template functions were covered, which an 87% line figure hides entirely.

An existing comment in the spec was wrong, and it was the blocker

result-exportation.component.spec.ts asserted in a comment that the nz-autocomplete option bodies are unreachable — that the option content "only enters the DOM once the autocomplete panel expands, which jsdom does not drive."

That is false. NzAutocompleteTriggerDirective declares a host focusin listener running handleFocus() → canOpen() → openPanel(), so dispatching new Event("focusin") on the search input and calling detectChanges() attaches the panel. Verified by rendering it: two option nodes, and clicking one fires the export.

Two mechanics that follow, both now in the spec:

• The options render into the overlay container in document.body, so they are queried with document.querySelectorAll. fixture.debugElement returns zero.
• The expected count is derived from the component's own filtered list, so a stale overlay from a sibling test cannot make the assertion vacuous.

Verification

30 mutations, all 30 killed, no survivors. Every mutant was re-derived from scratch against the repaired specs, one at a time. This includes all 8 that the two adversarial reviewers reported as surviving the first draft.

Three mutants were discarded as non-viable rather than counted, and by build evidence rather than argument:

• Two [nzDescription]="…length || null" variants are type-invalid — ng build rejects them under strictTemplates. A mutant that only fails to compile proves nothing, so they are not in the table either way.
• Swapping the (keyup.enter) and (keyup.escape) attributes wholesale, event names included, is a pure attribute reorder with no semantic change.

Corrections to the first draft

• "survivors": [] was true of the table it ran, but that table was defective: two of its fourteen rows were type-invalid mutants and its remaining coverage was too narrow to support the bundle's claims.
• Two rows presented as proving a || null fallback is load-bearing actually prove only that nz-alert renders a description node; rewritten to say that.
• The first draft flagged one test as soft, offering to fall back to 12 lines / 10 arms if a reviewer objected. That went the other way on measurement — the test is fine and the fallback is not needed.
• A note claiming a placeholder branch was "already covered" was wrong; it was not.
• A droppedTargets entry had correct arithmetic and the wrong conclusion.

Deliberately not included

The "value editable, name and type locked" behaviour cannot be asserted through a rendered formly-field: attaching a real FormControl before render makes FormlyField throw TypeError: Cannot destructure property 'updateOn' of 'field.modelOptions', because fieldChanges() assumes a fully built Formly field. Standing up a full FormlyModule.forRoot form for that is out of scope, and the behaviour is already covered at the unit level by three existing tests. The rendered-row test asserts structure instead.

No production file is touched, and no production seam was needed — every one of the 13 lines was reachable from a test-only change.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #7890

How was this PR tested?

npx ng test --watch=false --include="**/result-exportation.component.spec.ts" --include="**/ui-udf-parameters.component.spec.ts"

 Test Files  2 passed (2)
      Tests  57 passed (57)

jsdom prints two AggregateError blocks from xhr-utils.js during these specs. Those are pre-existing — present identically in the untouched baseline run. frontend/junit.xml and frontend/coverage/ are regenerated by every run and are not committed. yarn format:ci passes.

Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 5)

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

Based on the git blame history of the changed files, we recommend the following reviewers:

• Contributors with relevant context: @mengw15
  You can notify them by mentioning @mengw15 in a comment.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.22%. Comparing base (65f1f66) to head (0b269b6).
⚠️ Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #7891      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     92.09%   92.22%   +0.12%     
  Complexity     4533     4533              
============================================
  Files          1173     1173              
  Lines         47347    47347              
  Branches       5306     5306              
============================================
+ Hits          43604    43665      +61     
+ Misses         2105     2070      -35     
+ Partials       1638     1612      -26     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	81.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 65f1f66
agent-service	98.62% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 65f1f66
amber	88.76% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 65f1f66
computing-unit-managing-service	73.67% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 65f1f66
config-service	86.73% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 65f1f66
file-service	75.74% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 65f1f66
frontend	94.28% <ø> (+0.29%)	⬆️
notebook-migration-service	79.13% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 65f1f66
pyamber	97.52% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 65f1f66
workflow-compiling-service	77.19% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 65f1f66

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.