test(v4): ensure no interference with static assets query

[colinaaa]

This PR adds test cases to verify that the plugin does not interfere with static asset queries like ?url and ?raw on CSS files.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request introduces new test infrastructure to verify the robust behavior of the Tailwind CSS plugin when interacting with static asset queries for CSS files. The primary goal is to confirm that the plugin does not inadvertently modify or obstruct the expected outcomes of ?url and ?raw imports, thereby ensuring compatibility and predictable asset loading within the build process.

Highlights

• New Test Cases: Added comprehensive test cases to validate that the plugin correctly handles static asset queries, specifically ?url and ?raw, on CSS files without introducing interference.
• Static Asset Query Verification: The new tests ensure that when ?url is used, the correct CSS file path is returned, and when ?raw is used, the original CSS content is provided, free from Tailwind CSS's injected content.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Changelog

• test/static-assets/index.test.ts
  • Added a new Playwright test file to validate static asset query handling for CSS files.
• test/static-assets/src/index.css
  • Added a simple CSS file (.foo { color: red; }) to be used as a static asset for testing purposes.
• test/static-assets/src/index.js
  • Added a JavaScript file that imports index.css using ?url and ?raw queries, exposing their results to the window object for Playwright assertions.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This PR adds test cases to verify that the plugin does not interfere with static asset queries. The changes look good, and I've added a few suggestions to make the new test more robust by comparing against the file content directly, and to clean up some commented-out code in the test's source file.