Conversation
…rameterized-routes tests Remove unreliable navigation breadcrumb assertions from parameterized-routes E2E tests across all Next.js versions (13, 14, 15, 16, 16-bun, 16-cf-workers). These tests verify route parameterization, not breadcrumbs. The breadcrumb was not reliably present due to timing issues, causing flaky CI failures. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> Agent-Logs-Url: https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-javascript/sessions/6fc52aae-3e31-4ee7-bff3-fda21894f880 Co-authored-by: Lms24 <8420481+Lms24@users.noreply.github.com>
Copilot
AI
changed the title
[WIP] Investigate flaky CI issue with navigation breadcrumb
fix(e2e-tests): remove flaky navigation breadcrumb assertions from parameterized-routes tests
Apr 10, 2026
Contributor
Semver Impact of This PR🟢 Patch (bug fixes) 📋 Changelog PreviewThis is how your changes will appear in the changelog. New Features ✨Core
Deps
Other
Bug Fixes 🐛Deno
Other
Internal Changes 🔧Deps
Other
🤖 This preview updates automatically when you update the PR. |
Contributor
Semver Impact of This PR🟢 Patch (bug fixes) 📋 Changelog PreviewThis is how your changes will appear in the changelog. New Features ✨Core
Deps
Bug Fixes 🐛
Internal Changes 🔧Deps
Other
🤖 This preview updates automatically when you update the PR. |
Contributor
size-limit report 📦
|
Member
|
Hmm so usually I'd dismiss this as heavy AI slop but I'm not really sure why we assert on a navigation breadcrumb in a pageload transaction. Seems to me like chances are pretty high that it's not there reliably. I assume this comes from NextJS client router doing some |
Member
|
@Lms24 I have no good reason for this assertion other than it is something that was present in older tests and it carried over. I think the most important thing here is the transaction assertion itself, the breadcrumb isn't that important IMO, but unsure what other users would think. |
Lms24
changed the title
Member
Yeah, I think this is the most likely cause here. This probably worked reliably in older Next versions but in newer ones, the client router's behaviour might have changed (just a guess). Suggestion: I just marked this as ready to review. If you and Charly agree that we can get rid of the assertions, let's do it. We can also scope it to just Next 16 and leave it in place for earlier Next versions. If we don't merge this PR this week while I'm still here, please feel free to merge or close it any time afterwards |
chargome
approved these changes
Apr 14, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Navigation breadcrumb assertion in nextjs-16 parameterized-routes test is flaky — the breadcrumb isn't reliably present due to timing. These tests validate route parameterization, not breadcrumb recording, so the assertion is unnecessary.
breadcrumbs: expect.arrayContaining([...])from all parameterized-routes tests across all Next.js versions (13, 14, 15, 16, 16-bun, 16-cf-workers)