Refactor : Vitest to /src/screens/UserPortal/LeaveOrganization/LeaveOrganization

[shivasankaran18]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Added Vitest to /src/screens/UserPortal/LeaveOrganization/LeaveOrganization

Issue Number: 3132

Fixes #3132

Did you add tests for your changes?
Yes

Snapshots/Videos:

If relevant, did you update the documentation?

Summary

Migrated the testing framework to Vitest.
Updated all test files and configurations to be compatible with Vitest's syntax and features.

Have you read the contributing guide?

Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated testing framework from Jest to Vitest for the LeaveOrganization component tests
  • Migrated mock implementations for dependencies to be compatible with Vitest
  • Maintained existing test logic and functionality during the framework transition

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request focuses on refactoring the LeaveOrganization.spec.tsx test file from Jest to Vitest. The changes involve updating the testing framework's syntax, replacing Jest-specific mock functions with Vitest equivalents, and adjusting type casting for mocked hooks. The core testing logic and structure remain unchanged, ensuring that the component's tests continue to validate its functionality using the new testing framework.

Changes

File	Change Summary
src/screens/UserPortal/LeaveOrganization/LeaveOrganization.spec.tsx	Migrated from Jest to Vitest, replacing jest.mock with vi.mock, jest.fn() with vi.fn(), and updating mock implementations for react-toastify, react-router-dom, and local storage utility

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Refactor test file from Jest to Vitest [#3132]	✅
Rename test file to .spec.tsx	✅

Possibly related issues

• Refactor: src/screens/OrganizationTags/OrganizationTags.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #3071: Refactoring OrganizationTags.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest, similar framework migration approach
• Refactor: src/screens/UserPortal/Organizations from Jest to Vitest #2575: Migrating UserPortal/Organizations tests to Vitest
• Refactor: src/components/LeftDrawer/LeftDrawer.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #3119: Refactoring LeftDrawer.test.tsx to Vitest

Possibly related PRs

• Refactored src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2482: Refactoring tests from Jest to Vitest
• Refactor: src/screens/BlockUser from Jest to Vitest  #2606: Transitioning tests to Vitest
• Migrated src/screens/CommunityProfile/* from Jest to Vitest #3115: Migrating CommunityProfile component tests to Vitest
• Improve Code Coverage in src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/VolunteerManagement.tsx #3044 #3125: Updating VolunteerManagement tests to Vitest
• Improved Code Coverage in src/components/UserPortal/OrganizationNavbar/OrganizationNavbar.tsx #3127: Improving test coverage and migrating to Vitest

Suggested labels

refactor

Suggested reviewers

• pranshugupta54
• varshith257

Poem

🐰 Hop, skip, and a test away,
From Jest to Vitest, we pave the way!
Mocks transformed, functions anew,
Code dancing with a testing view.
Refactoring magic, clean and 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 5550711 and 56a2f4d.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/screens/UserPortal/LeaveOrganization/LeaveOrganization.spec.tsx (5 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Learnings (1)

📓 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.

🔇 Additional comments (9)

src/screens/UserPortal/LeaveOrganization/LeaveOrganization.spec.tsx (9)

20-20: Good import for Vitest usage.

Importing vi from 'vitest' is the correct approach to leverage Vitest-specific mocking methods.

---

22-23: Accurate transition from Jest to Vitest for react-toastify.

Replacing jest.mock with vi.mock and jest.fn with vi.fn is appropriately aligned with the Vitest mocking API.

---

28-31: LocalStorage mock is consistent.

Defining a localStorage mock with vi.fn() calls ensures tests remain deterministic without interfering with the real browser API.

---

38-45: Correct demonstration of module mocking in Vitest.

This approach merges react-router-dom’s actual exports with your mocked hooks, ensuring partial mocking while retaining default functionality.

---

48-50: Mocking custom hooks with Vitest.

This pattern properly encapsulates the behavior of the useLocalstorage utility, matching Vitest’s mocking style.

---

243-246: Appropriate usage of vi.clearAllMocks().

Replacing jest.clearAllMocks() with vi.clearAllMocks() aligns with Vitest and ensures all spies and mocks are reset per test run.

---

319-321: Console error spying is effective.

Using vi.spyOn to intercept and verify logs is a recommended method to check error logs without polluting the console output.

---

348-351: Mocking useNavigate with vi.fn().

This replacement ensures the navigation behavior is tested correctly under Vitest, maintaining behavior parity with Jest.

---

499-502: Consistent mocking pattern.

Reusing the same approach to mock useNavigate for another test scenario keeps your testing logic uniform and predictable.

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 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]

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 Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.51%. Comparing base (5550711) to head (56a2f4d).
Report is 2 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #3135       +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage             21.89%   89.51%   +67.61%     
=====================================================
  Files                   301      322       +21     
  Lines                  7685     8454      +769     
  Branches               1678     1843      +165     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   1683     7568     +5885     
+ Misses                 5896      655     -5241     
- Partials                106      231      +125     

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