# Test — Destructive UX & ConfirmDialog

**Task**: AZ-466_test_destructive_ux
**Name**: Destructive UX policy + ConfirmDialog a11y + no-alert + cancel paths
**Description**: Implement the 8 blackbox tests that pin the destructive-action policy: every destructive surface (delete class, delete user, etc.) shows a `<ConfirmDialog>` before issuing the request; the dialog has proper a11y; cancel suppresses the request; no `alert()` is ever used.
**Complexity**: 4 points
**Dependencies**: AZ-456_test_infrastructure
**Component**: 03_shared-ui (ConfirmDialog) + 08_admin (Blackbox Tests)
**Tracker**: AZ-466
**Epic**: AZ-455

## Problem

Without a uniform destructive-action gate, regressions add a delete button that fires directly — a one-click-data-loss bug. The policy is "no destructive action without ConfirmDialog, no `alert()` anywhere".

## Outcome

- 8 scenarios pass per the policy.
- A static check enumerates every destructive surface to keep the policy enforceable.

## Scope

### Included

| Scenario | Profile | Source file |
|----------|---------|-------------|
| FT-P-26 — class-delete with confirmation — happy path | fast + e2e | blackbox-tests.md |
| FT-P-27 — destructive policy — dialog before request for every destructive surface | fast (static enumeration) | blackbox-tests.md |
| FT-P-28 — ConfirmDialog has dialog + modal a11y attributes | fast | blackbox-tests.md |
| FT-P-29 — ConfirmDialog focus trap (Tab cycles inside) | fast | blackbox-tests.md |
| FT-N-07 — class-delete Cancel path — NO DELETE request issued | fast | blackbox-tests.md |
| FT-N-08 — Escape on `<ConfirmDialog>` cancels — no destructive request | fast | blackbox-tests.md |
| NFT-SEC-07 — `alert()` is forbidden anywhere in the SPA | static | security-tests.md |
| NFT-SEC-08 — ConfirmDialog gates every destructive action | static + fast | security-tests.md |

### Excluded

- ConfirmDialog content / phrasing (covered by i18n parity in 10_test_i18n).
- Specific delete-target wire shapes (covered by per-feature tasks).

## Acceptance Criteria

**AC-1: Happy path**
FT-P-26 simulates user clicking Delete → confirming → asserts the DELETE request fires AFTER the confirm.

**AC-2: Cancel paths**
FT-N-07 / FT-N-08 assert that pressing Cancel / Escape on the dialog suppresses the DELETE request entirely.

**AC-3: a11y**
FT-P-28 / FT-P-29 assert `role="dialog"`, `aria-modal="true"`, `aria-labelledby` / `aria-describedby` linkage, and a focus trap that keeps Tab inside the dialog.

**AC-4: Policy enforcement**
FT-P-27 / NFT-SEC-08 — a static check enumerates every surface with a `data-destructive` (or equivalent) attribute and asserts each one mounts a `<ConfirmDialog>` before its mutating handler runs.

**AC-5: No alert()**
NFT-SEC-07 — ripgrep static check `grep -rn 'alert(' src/` returns no hits outside test files.

## System Under Test Boundary

- System under test: `<ConfirmDialog>` + every destructive surface (delete class, delete user, etc.).
- Allowed stubs: MSW for the suite's delete endpoints (fast); real services (e2e).
- Disallowed: stubbing `<ConfirmDialog>`; reading its React state.
- Expected observables per `results_report.md` rows 49-51 + the rows for NFT-SEC-07, 08.

## Constraints

- Static check (FT-P-27 / NFT-SEC-08) requires a discoverable marker on destructive surfaces; this task lands the test, and per-component tasks (already in scope above) wire the markers.

## Risks & Mitigation

**Risk 1 — A destructive surface is added without the marker**
- *Risk*: a new feature adds a delete-button that bypasses the static check.
- *Mitigation*: the marker is on the shared `<DestructiveButton>` wrapper; using raw `<button>` for destructive actions is flagged by an ESLint rule landed in this task.
