Why Your Playwright Test Reports Are Messy (And How test.step() Fixes It)

You’ve written solid Playwright tests.
Your CI runs them every day.
But when a test fails at 3 AM, your on-call engineer opens the report and sees:

“Test failed: should complete checkout flow”
…and nothing else.

No clear reason.
No step-level context.
Just a long wall of logs, random screenshots, and 20 minutes of guesswork.

This isn’t a tooling problem.
It’s a test structure problem.

---

The Cost of Unstructured Playwright Tests

Most Playwright tests look like this:

js

test('should complete checkout flow', async ({ page }) => {
  await page.goto('/products');
  await page.click('[data-testid="add-to-cart"]');
  await page.click('[data-testid="checkout-button"]');
  await page.fill('#email', '[e-mail]');
  await page.fill('#card-number', '4242424242424242');
  await page.click('[data-testid="place-order"]');
  await expect(page.locator('.confirmation')).toBeVisible();
});

When this test fails, the report shows one generic failure.
There’s no clue whether the failure happened while:

• Adding to cart
• Navigating to checkout
• Typing payment details
• Or clicking “Place order”

So your team ends up:

• Downloading multiple screenshots
• Scrubbing logs to find the exact failure point
• Re-running tests with extra logging
• Asking, “Which step actually broke?”

Unstructured tests → unstructured reports → wasted debugging time.

---

Three Approaches to Cleaner Playwright Test Reports

The Playwright community widely uses these patterns.
Here are the three best approaches, from simplest to most scalable.

1. Inline test.step() (Simple & Effective)

The easiest improvement is to wrap each logical action in a step.

js

test('should complete checkout flow', async ({ page }) => {
  await test.step('Navigate to products page', async () => {
    await page.goto('/products');
  });

  await test.step('Add product to cart', async () => {
    await page.click('[data-testid="add-to-cart"]');
  });

  await test.step('Proceed to checkout', async () => {
    await page.click('[data-testid="checkout-button"]');
  });

  await test.step('Fill payment details', async () => {
    await page.fill('#email', '[e-mail]');
    await page.fill('#card-number', '4242424242424242');
  });

  await test.step('Place order', async () => {
    await page.click('[data-testid="place-order"]');
    await expect(page.locator('.confirmation')).toBeVisible();
  });
});

Result:

• Clear step-by-step breakdown in the report
• Each step gets its own screenshot, logs, and trace section
• You instantly know which step failed

Trade-off: More verbose,but massively improved debugging.

---

2. Decorator Pattern (Best for Bigger Teams & POM)

If you use Page Object Models, decorators avoid repeating test.step() everywhere.

step.ts

ts

export function step(stepName?: string) {
  return function decorator(target: Function, context: ClassMethodDecoratorContext) {
    return async function (...args: any[]) {
      const name = stepName || `${this.constructor.name}.${String(context.name)}`;
      return await test.step(name, async () => {
        return target.apply(this, args);
      });
    };
  };
}

---

checkout.action.ts

ts

export class CheckoutAction {
  constructor(private page: Page) {}

  @step('Add product to cart')
  async addToCart() {
    await this.page.click('[data-testid="add-to-cart"]');
  }

  @step('Fill payment details')
  async fillPaymentDetails(email: string, cardNumber: string) {
    await this.page.fill('#email', email);
    await this.page.fill('#card-number', cardNumber);
  }
}

---

checkout.spec.ts

ts

test('should complete checkout flow', async ({ page }) => {
  const checkout = new CheckoutAction(page);

  await checkout.addToCart();
  await checkout.fillPaymentDetails(
    '[e-mail]',
    '4242424242424242'
  );
});

Result:

• Automatic step names
• Clean test files
• Consistent reporting
• Works beautifully across large test suites

Trade-off: Requires TypeScript decorators (ES2023) and a bit of setup.

---

3. Magic Steps (Comment-Based, Very Lightweight)

Using the playwright-magic-steps package, comments become steps.

js

test('should complete checkout flow', async ({ page }) => {
  // step: Navigate to products page
  await page.goto('/products');

  // step: Add product to cart
  await page.click('[data-testid="add-to-cart"]');

  // step: Fill payment details
  await page.fill('#email', '[e-mail]');
  await page.fill('#card-number', '4242424242424242');
});

Result:

• Cleanest syntax
• Zero wrapping
• Steps appear in the report automatically

Trade-off: Requires installing an additional package.

---

How Structured Steps Transform Your Reporting

Before structure:

“Test failed somewhere in checkout.”

After structure:

“❌ Failed at step: Fill payment details”

Before:

• 10 screenshots
• Flat logs

After:

• Evidence grouped per step
• Clear hierarchy
• Faster root-cause analysis

---

Structured steps unlock powerful analytics:

• Which step fails most often
• Which step takes the longest
• Which workflow became flaky after a recent commit
• Step-level screenshots, videos, and trace events

This is the difference between debugging blindly and debugging intelligently.

Structured Tests + Intelligent Reporting = Zero Guesswork

test.step() gives your test structure.
But structure is only half the story.
You also need a reporting platform that actually uses it.

Modern test reporting should:

• Visualize step hierarchies
• Attach screenshots/logs per step
• Show duration & performance trends
• Highlight flaky steps
• Link failures to commits

When structured tests meet a smart reporting layer, debugging goes from detective work to diagnostics.

---

Want to See What Playwright Reporting Should Look Like?

If your Playwright report still looks like a long, flat log dump,you’re not debugging ,you’re guessing.

See how TestDino turns structured tests into actionable insights,not noise

Here