Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Refactored src/components/Advertisements/core/* from Jest to Vitest #2950

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 26, 2024
Merged

Refactored src/components/Advertisements/core/* from Jest to Vitest #2950

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 26, 2024

Conversation

syedali237
Copy link
Contributor

@syedali237 syedali237 commented Dec 26, 2024 •
edited by coderabbitai bot
Loading

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Refactoring

Issue Number:

Fixes #2790

Did you add tests for your changes?

Yes

If relevant, did you update the documentation?

No

Summary

Migrated test case from jest to vitest. Added an extra test to increase coverage.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

No

Other information

N/A

Have you read the contributing guide?

Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes

    • Removed outdated unit tests for the AdvertisementEntry component to streamline testing processes.

  • Tests

    • Migrated tests for the AdvertisementRegister component from jest to vitest, ensuring compatibility with the new testing framework.
    • Added a new test case for verifying success toast display upon successful advertisement updates.

@coderabbitai coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 26, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Walkthrough

This pull request involves the migration of test files for the AdvertisementEntry and AdvertisementRegister components from Jest to Vitest. The changes primarily focus on replacing Jest-specific testing functions and mocks with their Vitest equivalents, and renaming the test files from .test.tsx to .spec.tsx. The modifications ensure compatibility with the Vitest testing framework while maintaining the existing test logic and coverage.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementEntry/AdvertisementEntry.test.tsx Deleted test file
src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementRegister/AdvertisementRegister.spec.tsx Migrated from Jest to Vitest, replaced jest.mock with vi.mock, jest.fn() with vi.fn(), and added a new test case for success toast

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Replace Jest-specific functions with Vitest equivalents [#2790] ✅
Rename test file to .spec.tsx [#2790] ✅
Ensure tests pass with npm run test:vitest [#2790] ❓ Requires verification during testing
Maintain 100% test coverage [#2790] ❓ Requires verification of coverage

Possibly related issues

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

refactor

Suggested reviewers

  • palisadoes

Poem

🐰 Hop, hop, testing we go!
From Jest to Vitest, watch our code flow
Mocks and functions, now shiny and new
Refactoring tests with a bunny's view
Migration complete, our tests now shine bright! 🧪✨

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5b3e840 and dc3bcf6.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementEntry/AdvertisementEntry.test.tsx (0 hunks)
  • src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementRegister/AdvertisementRegister.spec.tsx (20 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
  • src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementEntry/AdvertisementEntry.test.tsx
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (2)
📓 Common learnings 
Learnt from: bitbard3
PR: PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-admin#2588
File: src/components/ChangeLanguageDropdown/ChangeLanguageDropdown.spec.tsx:145-155
Timestamp: 2024-12-02T04:20:11.745Z
Learning: In PRs focused solely on refactoring test cases from Jest to Vitest, avoid suggesting optimizations or changes outside the migration scope.

Learnt from: IITI-tushar
PR: PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-admin#2680
File: src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementEntry/AdvertisementEntry.spec.tsx:528-712
Timestamp: 2024-12-22T07:43:26.168Z
Learning: You prefer to keep migrated tests even if they appear duplicated because they originated from the old AdvertisementEntry.test.tsx file.
src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementRegister/AdvertisementRegister.spec.tsx (1) 
Learnt from: IITI-tushar
PR: PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-admin#2680
File: src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementEntry/AdvertisementEntry.spec.tsx:528-712
Timestamp: 2024-12-22T07:43:26.168Z
Learning: You prefer to keep migrated tests even if they appear duplicated because they originated from the old AdvertisementEntry.test.tsx file.
🔇 Additional comments (33)
src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementRegister/AdvertisementRegister.spec.tsx (33)

28-28: No issues with 'vitest' import.
This aligns well with the overall migration from Jest to Vitest.

32-39: React Router DOM mocking looks good.
Using vi.mock followed by await vi.importActual is a valid approach.

41-45: Mocking toastify is properly converted.
No issues found in switching to vi.fn() calls here.

133-138: Local storage mocking is correctly migrated.
The usage of vi.fn().mockReturnValue('token') is appropriate.

186-186: Usage of setTimeoutSpy is consistent with Vitest.
Spy is created correctly on the global setTimeout function.

201-201: No issues with passing vi.fn() for setAfter.
This matches the overall approach of mocking callbacks in the test.

273-273: Calling vi.useRealTimers() is correct.
Ensures that real timers are restored after the test.

277-277: Repeated setTimeout spy usage is consistent.
Matches the pattern established in the previous test.

292-292: Mocking setAfter in edit mode is valid.
No issues found with this approach.

364-364: Restoring real timers here is appropriate.
Follows best practice for non-interfering with other tests.

368-369: Spying on both setTimeout and toast.error is correct.
Provides thorough coverage for error-handling scenarios.

418-418: Spying on setTimeout for date validation scenario is valid.
No issues with this approach.

431-431: Passing vi.fn() to setAfter is consistent with the rest of the file.
Keeps the test deterministic and free of external side effects.

485-485: Real timers restoration.
Ensures that the environment is reset properly.

502-502: Mock for setAfter in edit mode is fine.
Adheres to the newly introduced pattern for callback mocking.

512-512: Restoring real timers again.
Maintains consistent teardown across tests.

528-528: Repeated callback mocking for setAfter is consistent.
No concerns found.

543-543: Real timers restoration is done correctly.
No extra adjustments needed.

561-561: setAfter mock is used consistently across the file.
No problems here.

609-609: Restoring real timers after error check.
The approach remains aligned with Vitest’s best practices.

625-625: Passing vi.fn() for setAfter is consistent.
No other issues noted here.

649-649: Real timers reset call.
Keeps test suite behavior isolated.

650-650: No functional changes in this empty line.
No further suggestions needed.

651-652: New test introduction detected.
Confirming that the changes from Jest to Vitest are consistent.

653-653: Empty line with no effect on functionality.
No additional concerns.

654-675: Overall test block structure is valid.
The migration approach is consistent, and usage of MockedProvider with Vitest is correct.

676-677: Clicking edit button usage is correct.
No issues found.

678-678: No notable concerns.
The code changes remain within the migration scope.

679-680: Manipulating advertisement name is properly tested.
No issues with the vitest approach.

681-681: No concerns found.
This line still fits the migration scope.

682-684: Clicking save button.
Test logic remains intact after the migration.

685-690: Toast and setTimeout verifications are correct.
Ensures the test covers success behavior thoroughly.

691-691: End of the test block.
No additional feedback.

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

Our Pull Request Approval Process

Thanks for contributing!

Testing Your Code

Remember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:

  1. We don't merge PRs with poor code quality.
    1. Follow coding best practices such that CodeRabbit.ai approves your PR.
  2. We don't merge PRs with failed tests.
    1. When tests fail, click on the Details link to learn more.
    2. Write sufficient tests for your changes (CodeCov Patch Test). Your testing level must be better than the target threshold of the repository
    3. Tests may fail if you edit sensitive files. Ask to add the ignore-sensitive-files-pr label if the edits are necessary.
  3. We cannot merge PRs with conflicting files. These must be fixed.

Our policies make our code better.

Reviewers

Do not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
When your PR has been assigned reviewers contact them to get your code reviewed and approved via:

  1. comments in this PR or
  2. our slack channel

Reviewing Your Code

Your reviewer(s) will have the following roles:

  1. arbitrators of future discussions with other contributors about the validity of your changes
  2. point of contact for evaluating the validity of your work
  3. person who verifies matching issues by others that should be closed.
  4. person who gives general guidance in fixing your tests

CONTRIBUTING.md

Read our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:

  1. PRs with issues not assigned to you will be closed by the reviewer
  2. Fix the first comment in the PR so that each issue listed automatically closes

Other

  1. 🎯 Please be considerate of our volunteers' time. Contacting the person who assigned the reviewers is not advised unless they ask for your input. Do not @ the person who did the assignment otherwise.
  2. Read the CONTRIBUTING.md file make

@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 26, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.39%. Comparing base (5b3e840) to head (dc3bcf6).
Report is 3 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #2950       +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage             41.84%   88.39%   +46.54%     
=====================================================
  Files                   299      316       +17     
  Lines                  7422     8273      +851     
  Branches               1624     1813      +189     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   3106     7313     +4207     
+ Misses                 4106      742     -3364     
- Partials                210      218        +8

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

palisadoes
palisadoes approved these changes Dec 26, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@palisadoes palisadoes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for adding the additional test cases

@palisadoes palisadoes merged commit ac36851 into PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres Dec 26, 2024
13 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@coderabbitai coderabbitai[bot] coderabbitai[bot] approved these changes

@palisadoes palisadoes palisadoes approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@syedali237 @palisadoes