push-notification-test-author

Overview

Three push platforms dominate:

Each platform has distinct test patterns; Step 1 picks the isolation level and Steps 2 - 4 cover the per-platform test approach.

When to use

• The repo sends push notifications via any of the three platforms.
• A regression suite needs to verify push payload shape, click actions, badge counts.
• Compliance review needs evidence that revoked subscriptions are cleaned up.
• The team integrates with FCM / APNs / Web Push directly (not via OneSignal-style abstractions).

How to use

1. Identify which push platform(s) the app targets - Web Push, APNs, FCM, or a mix (Overview).
2. Pick the isolation level; default to mocking the SDK send method (Step 1).
3. Author the happy-path payload-shape test for each channel (Steps 2 - 4, references/platform-test-patterns.md).
4. Add the invalid-token cleanup test for the 410 / unregistered path (Steps 2 - 4).
5. Cover silent-vs-alert, click-action deep links, and FCM topic routing (Steps 5 - 7).
6. Assert production-vs-sandbox environment routing so tests never reach real users (Step 3).
7. Run the per-channel checklist in Step 8 and reconcile against the Anti-patterns table.

Step 1 - Choose the test isolation level

Default: mock the SDK - fast, deterministic, covers payload-shape + error-path logic which is most of what regressions hit. Use sandbox/emulator when verifying provider-side behavior (encryption, rate-limit, real 410 handling); use real device farms only for grouped-notification / channel UX work.

Step 2 - Web Push tests

Per IETF RFC 8030 (Web Push Protocol): the user-agent subscribes via pushManager.subscribe(), the app server sends an encrypted (RFC 8291) + VAPID-signed (RFC 8292) push to the returned endpoint, and the service worker's push event calls self.registration.showNotification(). Status code 410 Gone means the subscription is invalid (user revoked or expired); the app must remove it from storage.

Mock webPush.sendNotification and assert payload shape plus the 410 cleanup path; add a service-worker harness test that dispatches a synthetic PushEvent. Full Node.js + service-worker recipes: references/platform-test-patterns.md.

Step 3 - APNs tests

Apple Push Notification Service has two environments per developer.apple.com/documentation/usernotifications (opens in new window):

Tests typically run against sandbox + use a development APNs certificate or Auth Key (.p8 file). Mock apns_client.send, assert the aps payload shape (alert title / body, sound), and cover the HTTP 410 (Unregistered) token-cleanup path. Python recipes: references/platform-test-patterns.md.

Step 4 - FCM tests

Firebase Cloud Messaging supports HTTP v1 API + legacy HTTP API. Use HTTP v1 for new code (legacy deprecated). Mock admin.messaging().send, assert the cross-platform message shape (token, notification, data, android, apns), and test the messaging/registration-token-not-registered cleanup path (same as APNs Step 3). Node.js recipe: references/platform-test-patterns.md.

Step 5 - Silent vs alert push

• Alert push: shows a notification UI; user sees + taps. Standard pattern.
• Silent push (also "background push"): doesn't show UI; wakes the app to do background work. Apple imposes throttling on these per apns-docs (opens in new window).

Tests should distinguish the two and assert correct payload:

it('uses content-available for background sync', () => {
  const payload = buildSilentSyncPush();
  expect(payload.aps['content-available']).toBe(1);
  expect(payload.aps.alert).toBeUndefined();   // no UI for silent
});

Step 6 - Click-action / deep-link tests

The push payload includes a click-action / URL that opens a specific app screen. Test that the right deep-link is in the payload:

def test_order_push_deep_links_to_order_screen():
    payload = build_order_push(order_id=123)
    assert payload["data"]["click_action"] == "/orders/123"

End-to-end click-action tests require device automation (Espresso / XCUITest); cross-ref appium-testing (in the qa-mobile plugin).

Step 7 - Topic vs targeted routing

FCM supports topic subscriptions (broadcast to all subscribers of a topic) vs targeted (single device token). Tests for topic routing:

it('subscribes user to order-updates topic', async () => {
  const subSpy = jest.spyOn(admin.messaging(), 'subscribeToTopic')
    .mockResolvedValue({ successCount: 1, failureCount: 0, errors: [] });

  await subscribeToOrderUpdates('user-device-token', userId);

  expect(subSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith(['user-device-token'], `user-${userId}`);
});

Step 8 - End-to-end test recipe

For each push channel:

1. ✅ Happy-path send with correct payload shape (Steps 2 - 4)
2. ✅ Invalid-token cleanup on 410 / unregistered response (Steps 2 - 4)
3. ✅ Silent vs alert distinction (Step 5)
4. ✅ Click-action / deep-link assertion (Step 6)
5. ✅ Topic subscription handling (FCM, Step 7)
6. ✅ Production vs sandbox environment routing (Step 3)

Worked example

An e-commerce app sends a Web Push "order shipped" notification and must clean up revoked subscriptions.

1. Platform: Web Push only (Overview). Isolation: mock webPush.sendNotification (Step 1 default).
2. Happy path: a test drives pushOrderUpdate(sub, { orderId: 123, status: 'shipped' }) and asserts sendNotification was called with a payload string containing "orderId":123. The mock returns { statusCode: 201 }; the assertion passes.
3. Revocation: a second test mocks sendNotification to reject with { statusCode: 410 }. After pushOrderUpdate runs, the test asserts the subscription row is gone from storage (Subscription.findOne(...) returns null), proving the 410 cleanup path per RFC 8030.
4. Service-worker side: dispatch a synthetic PushEvent whose data.json() returns the order payload; assert self.registration.showNotification was called with body shipped.
5. Result: three passing tests - payload shape, 410 cleanup, and SW render - cover the whole Web Push channel. Repeat the references/platform-test-patterns.md recipes for APNs / FCM if the app adds those channels.

Anti-patterns

Limitations

• This is a build-an-X workflow. Tests use the application's chosen push library + mocks at the SDK boundary.
• APNs sandbox has rate limits; high-volume CI may need to mock vs real sandbox.
• FCM emulator coverage is limited; many provider-side behaviors require real FCM (sandbox / dev project).
• Push-notification UX (e.g., grouped notifications, notification channels on Android) requires device-side testing (Espresso / XCUITest); see qa-mobile plugins.
• iOS notification permissions UI flow is OS-managed; tests cover app-side request + handle response.

References

• references/platform-test-patterns.md - full Web Push / APNs / FCM test-pattern code
• IETF RFC 8030 - Web Push Protocol
• IETF RFC 8291 - Message Encryption for Web Push
• IETF RFC 8292 - VAPID for Web Push
• apns-docs (opens in new window) - Apple Push Notification Service
• firebase.google.com/docs/cloud-messaging - Firebase Cloud Messaging
• web.dev/explore/notifications - Push API + Notifications API
• npmjs.com/package/web-push - Node.js web-push library
• pypi.org/project/apns2 - Python APNs HTTP/2 library
• email-flow-test-author, sms-test-author - sister channels
• appium-testing, xcuitest-suite, espresso-suite - device-side click-action verification