Desktop QA Flows

Desktop QA Flows

Use this skill when asked to create, review, or improve QA flows for a Rocket.Chat Desktop PR, branch, release candidate, or changed feature.

Canonical References

Read these before authoring flows:

• AGENTS.md
• qa/AGENTS.md
• qa/README.md
• qa/flow-template.md

Those files define the schema and validation rules. This skill defines the repeatable PR workflow.

Workflow

1. Lock the comparison range: base branch, head branch or commit, and whether the requested range is fully in scope.
2. Inspect the changed implementation before writing steps: changed files, commits, tests, React components, Fuselage icons, i18n labels, menu definitions, modal buttons, platform guards, docs, installers, and helper pages.
3. Map changed Desktop surfaces to user-visible risk:
   • Electron main process, preload, IPC, and deep links.
   • Settings UI, menus, modals, server list, i18n, and layout.
   • OS protocol handlers, default apps, registry, desktop files, and cold launch behavior.
   • Packaging, installers, release policy, startup, persistence, shortcuts, workspace routing, and diagnostics.
4. Compare those risks with existing qa/**/flows/*.md.
5. Update an existing flow when it already covers the same user-visible hypothesis.
6. Add a new flow when the changed surface creates a new user-visible risk.
7. Create a new qa/<feature-slug>/ pack when the risk does not belong in an existing pack.
8. Write every branch-derived flow with ## Review Basis: comparison range, changed surface, user-visible risk, hypothesis, and smallest useful proof.
9. Keep every step visually findable. Put screen region, relative position, icon shape, nearby UI, visible labels, and confirmation state directly in the Action cell.
10. Add static helper HTML or read-only scripts when they reduce ambiguity for clickable links, protocol handlers, OS checks, or repeated evidence capture.

Coverage Rules

• Do not claim full QA unless the full requested comparison range was checked.
• Mark unchanged or already-covered surfaces explicitly in the summary.
• Classify result findings as confirmed, suspected, or blocked.
• If runtime validation is not practical, use the smallest useful proof: an existing test, targeted test, local UI repro, OS-level repro, or code-path proof.
• Keep Qase source IDs in the repo and leave generated Qase IDs empty until a case already exists in Qase.

Validation

After changing QA packs, run:

node qa/scripts/validate-flows.mjs qa/<pack>
node qa/scripts/export-qase-csv.mjs qa/<pack>
git diff --check

Report any unvalidated pack or partial surface review clearly.