Model a scroll container in the drag-and-drop spec fixtures

[myabc]

Ticket

No work package — frontend test-output hygiene, noticed while working on AGILE-361.

What are you trying to accomplish?

Remove ~43 auto-scroll warnings and their DOM dumps from Vitest output by giving drag-and-drop fixtures realistic scroll containers.

What approach did you choose and why?

Add overflow-y: auto to the appropriate fixture elements or wrappers, without height limits, preserving geometry-sensitive assertions. Fixtures testing missing scroll containers or explicit-list fallbacks remain unchanged.

Nested roots get separate scroll hosts because sharing one can lose auto-scroll when either root cleans up. This remains a constraint for the scroll-container decision deferred in #24504.

Merge checklist

• Added/updated tests — test-only change; 167 files / 1548 tests pass
• Added/updated documentation in Lookbook (patterns, previews, etc) — n/a
• Tested major browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, ...) — chromium only

[github-actions]

Warning

This pull request does not link an OpenProject work package.

Please add a link to the work package in the description, or reference it in the
title in square brackets, e.g. [SLUG-123] My title here.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR updates frontend drag-and-drop spec fixtures to better model production by ensuring Pragmatic’s auto-scroll attaches to an element that appears scrollable (via computed overflow), eliminating noisy Vitest warnings and large DOM dumps in test output.

Changes:

• Adds scroll-container semantics to multiple spec fixtures via overflow-y:auto / overflow: auto wrappers.
• Adjusts several Angular test templates to include a .scroll-host (and in nested-root cases an additional .inner-scroll-host) so ancestor-walk logic resolves a scrollable element.
• Updates spec comments around why Pragmatic is not mocked and why these fixtures must model scrollability.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
frontend/src/common/drag-and-drop/sortable-lists-engine.preview.spec.ts	Makes the fixture root look scrollable so engine-level auto-scroll registration doesn’t warn.
frontend/src/app/shared/helpers/drag-and-drop/drag-and-drop.service.spec.ts	Ensures the service’s provided container is treated as a scroll container by Pragmatic.
frontend/src/app/shared/directives/sortable-lists/sortable-lists.directive.behavior.spec.ts	Wraps multiple directive fixtures in scrollable ancestors so closest-scrollable-ancestor resolution matches production.
frontend/src/app/features/work-packages/components/wp-card-view/services/wp-card-drag-and-drop.service.spec.ts	Adds a scrollable wrapper for the two-list card-view directive fixture to avoid autoscroll warnings.

[github-actions]

Warning

Flaky specs

• rspec ./spec/features/activities/work_package/activities_spec.rb[1:5:2:1]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24622, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./spec/features/activities/work_package/activities_spec.rb[1:5:2:1]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24622. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24622 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @myabc to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @myabc, and request a review from @myabc.
On every commit, set @myabc as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

[github-actions]

Warning

Flaky specs

• rspec ./spec/features/activities/work_package/activities_spec.rb[1:5:2:1]
• rspec ./spec/features/projects/create_spec.rb[1:12:3:2:1]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24622, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./spec/features/activities/work_package/activities_spec.rb[1:5:2:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/projects/create_spec.rb[1:12:3:2:1]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24622. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24622 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @myabc to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @myabc, and request a review from @myabc.
On every commit, set @myabc as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

[github-actions]

Warning

Flaky specs

• rspec ./modules/backlogs/spec/features/inbox_column_spec.rb[1:7:1]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24622, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./modules/backlogs/spec/features/inbox_column_spec.rb[1:7:1]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24622. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24622 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @myabc to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @myabc, and request a review from @myabc.
On every commit, set @myabc as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

[github-actions]

Warning

Flaky specs

• rspec ./modules/overviews/spec/features/managing_dashboard_page_spec.rb[1:1:1]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24622, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./modules/overviews/spec/features/managing_dashboard_page_spec.rb[1:1:1]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24622. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24622 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @myabc to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @myabc, and request a review from @myabc.
On every commit, set @myabc as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

[github-actions]

Warning

Flaky specs

• rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:1]
• rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:2]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24622, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/table/switch_types_spec.rb[1:1:2]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24622. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24622 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @myabc to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @myabc, and request a review from @myabc.
On every commit, set @myabc as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.

[github-actions]

Warning

Flaky specs

• rspec ./spec/features/notifications/navigation_spec.rb[1:1:1]
• rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/new/attributes_from_filter_spec.rb[1:3:1]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #24622, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./spec/features/notifications/navigation_spec.rb[1:1:1]`
- `rspec ./spec/features/work_packages/new/attributes_from_filter_spec.rb[1:3:1]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #24622. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #24622 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @myabc to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @myabc, and request a review from @myabc.
On every commit, set @myabc as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.