Improve Code Coverage in src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.tsx #3163
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@abbi4code has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 15 minutes and 26 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
WalkthroughThe pull request focuses on enhancing the test coverage and simplifying the code structure for the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
Our Pull Request Approval ProcessThanks for contributing! Testing Your CodeRemember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:
Our policies make our code better. ReviewersDo not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
Reviewing Your CodeYour reviewer(s) will have the following roles:
CONTRIBUTING.mdRead our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:
Other
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.spec.tsx(3 hunks)src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.tsx(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.spec.tsx
[error] 4284-4286: Disallow duplicate setup and teardown hooks.
Disallow beforeEach duplicacy inside the describe function.
(lint/suspicious/noDuplicateTestHooks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.tsx (2)
140-140: Thank you for removing the Istanbul ignore comment here.Great job ensuring
toggleCreateDirectChatModalis now fully testable, improving overall coverage. Keep verifying that your newly added tests effectively cover both open and close functionalities.
150-150: Nice coverage strategy for toggling Group Chat creation.Likewise, having
toggleCreateGroupChatModalfully covered by tests is beneficial. Ensure that all modal states (open/close) are validated in your test suites.
& removed duplicated hooks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.spec.tsx (2)
32-32: Consider usinguserEventinstead offireEvent.The commented import of
userEventsuggests it was considered.userEventprovides more realistic user interaction simulation thanfireEventas it more closely mimics real browser events and user behavior.-// import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event'; +import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event';
Line range hint
4400-4527: Enhance test coverage with additional scenarios.Consider adding these test cases to improve coverage:
- Error handling for failed API calls
- Empty chat lists
- Network timeout scenarios
- Chat filter transitions with loading states
- Pagination if applicable
Also consider these improvements:
- Create shared test utilities for common operations
- Add snapshot tests for consistent UI rendering
- Test keyboard navigation
- Test accessibility requirements
Would you like me to help create these additional test cases? I can provide implementations for any of these scenarios.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.spec.tsx(3 hunks)src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.tsx(3 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.tsx
|
@coderabbitai full-review |
|
@abbi4code: Below is a comprehensive review of the entire PR, as requested: Overall PR ReviewScope & Objective Detailed Review1.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (6)
src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.tsx (2)
140-140: Ensure consistency in function definitions for better readability.Using an arrow function for toggling the modal is perfectly fine. However, be consistent across the component. If other toggles or similar functions are declared using
functionsyntax, consider unifying them for codebase uniformity.
150-150: Maintain consistency in arrow function usage.Same suggestion as above. Consistency fosters easier maintenance and helps new contributors quickly understand your approach to toggling components.
src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.spec.tsx (4)
32-32: Consider uncommentinguserEventimport.If you’re migrating away from direct
fireEventcalls, uncommenting and usinguserEventcan reduce reliance on multiple asyncact()blocks and make tests more user-centric.
4285-4349: Reduce multipleact()calls to avoid potential flakiness.Chaining multiple
act()blocks might cause brittle tests. Consider refactoring to useuserEventor consolidated awaits that verify the final UI state, instead of manually usingsetTimeout.
4350-4400: Add intermediate assertions for better test clarity.After clicking the “allChat” button, consider asserting the button’s active state before checking the contact cards array length for improved test readability.
4528-4611: Add error condition coverage for group chat fetching.Everything looks fine for happy-path testing. However, verifying how the component handles a failing or empty group chat response can further boost coverage and reliability.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.spec.tsx(3 hunks)src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.tsx(3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.tsx (1)
305-305: Looks good!Rendering the
ContactCardwith the spreadcardPropsis clear and straightforward. No issues flagged here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.spec.tsx (2)
32-32: Uncomment and useuserEventfor better interaction testing.The commented import of
userEventshould be uncommented. UserEvent provides a more realistic way to simulate user interactions compared tofireEvent, as it more closely mimics real browser events and their side effects.-// import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event'; +import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event';
4517-4547: Improve test structure while maintaining correct test IDs.The test correctly uses different test IDs for container and contact elements, but needs structural improvements.
Improve the implementation while maintaining the test ID hierarchy:
it('should fetch and set group chats when filterType is "group"', async () => { setItem('userId', '1'); render( <MockedProvider mocks={mock} addTypename={false}> <BrowserRouter> <Provider store={store}> <I18nextProvider i18n={i18nForTest}> <Chat /> </I18nextProvider> </Provider> </BrowserRouter> </MockedProvider>, ); const groupChatButton = await screen.findByTestId('groupChat'); - await act(async () => { - fireEvent.click(groupChatButton); - }); - - await act(async () => { - await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, 0)); - }); + await userEvent.click(groupChatButton); + await waitFor(() => { + expect(groupChatButton).toHaveClass('active'); + }); // First verify the container is present const container = await screen.findByTestId('contactCardContainer'); expect(container).toBeInTheDocument(); // Then verify the contact cards within the container const chatContacts = await screen.findAllByTestId('contactContainer'); expect(chatContacts).toHaveLength(1); + + // Verify the content of the contact cards + expect(chatContacts[0]).toHaveTextContent('Test Group Chat'); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.spec.tsx(3 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: Test Application
- GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (javascript)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.spec.tsx (1)
4285-4361: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionImprove test reliability and readability.
The current test implementation has several areas for improvement:
- Using
setTimeout(0)is an anti-pattern and can lead to flaky tests- Multiple
act()wrappings make the test hard to read- Missing intermediate assertions between filter changes
Consider this improved implementation:
it('should handle filter changes in sequence', async () => { setItem('userId', '1'); const mockChatsData = { chatsByUserId: [ { _id: '1', isGroup: false, users: [{ _id: '1', firstName: 'John', lastName: 'Doe' }], messages: [], unseenMessagesByUsers: '{}', }, ], }; const mocks = [ { request: { query: CHATS_LIST, variables: { id: '1' }, }, result: { data: mockChatsData, }, }, ]; render( <MockedProvider mocks={mocks} addTypename={false}> <BrowserRouter> <Provider store={store}> <Chat /> </Provider> </BrowserRouter> </MockedProvider>, ); const allChatButton = await screen.findByTestId('allChat'); const unreadChatButton = await screen.findByTestId('unreadChat'); const groupChatButton = await screen.findByTestId('groupChat'); - await act(async () => { - fireEvent.click(unreadChatButton); - }); - await act(async () => { - await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, 0)); - }); + await userEvent.click(unreadChatButton); + await waitFor(() => { + expect(screen.getByTestId('unreadChat')).toHaveClass('active'); + }); - await act(async () => { - fireEvent.click(groupChatButton); - }); - await act(async () => { - await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, 0)); - }); + await userEvent.click(groupChatButton); + await waitFor(() => { + expect(screen.getByTestId('groupChat')).toHaveClass('active'); + }); - await act(async () => { - fireEvent.click(allChatButton); - }); - await act(async () => { - await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, 0)); - }); + await userEvent.click(allChatButton); + await waitFor(() => { + expect(screen.getByTestId('allChat')).toHaveClass('active'); + }); const contactCards = await screen.findAllByTestId('contactCardContainer'); expect(contactCards).toHaveLength(mockChatsData.chatsByUserId.length); });Likely invalid or redundant comment.
|
Regarding the removal of hideDrawer The hideDrawer state and its resize logic can be removed since they don't affect the UI or component functionality. It's not used in rendering, CSS classes, or conditional display. Responsive behavior is already handled through CSS and flex properties, so this code is unnecessary |
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop-postgres #3163 +/- ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage 19.97% 89.71% +69.74%
=====================================================
Files 302 323 +21
Lines 7694 8452 +758
Branches 1678 1899 +221
=====================================================
+ Hits 1537 7583 +6046
+ Misses 6061 644 -5417
- Partials 96 225 +129 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.tsx (1)
305-305: Maps chat data to ContactCard as expected.
The usage of spread syntax for passing props is concise, but ensure each prop remains type-safe and tested. Sincetitlelogic depends on the user array’s indexing, consider adding a boundary check or fallback for robust error handling in future expansions.src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.spec.tsx (1)
32-32: Consider usinguserEventinstead offireEvent.The commented import of
userEventsuggests it was considered but not implemented.userEventprovides a more accurate simulation of user interactions compared tofireEvent. It better represents how users interact with your application by handling focus, blur, and other browser events more realistically.-// import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event'; +import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event';
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.spec.tsx(3 hunks)src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.tsx(3 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Test Application
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.tsx (2)
140-140: Well-structured toggle function for the direct chat modal.
The straightforward arrow function that flips the state is clear and idiomatic React. Make sure to include or maintain corresponding tests validating the toggling behavior, ensuring full coverage of modal open/close actions.
150-150: Consistent pattern for toggling the group chat modal.
This approach matches the direct chat modal’s toggling pattern, enhancing consistency. Verify you have tests that confirm both creating a group chat flow and properly closing the modal, to preserve coverage gains.src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.spec.tsx (1)
4285-4361: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionImprove test reliability and assertions.
The current implementation has several anti-patterns that could make the tests flaky:
- Using
setTimeout(0)is an anti-pattern and can lead to race conditions- Multiple
act()wrappings can be simplified- Missing intermediate assertions between filter changes
Consider this improved implementation:
it('should handle filter changes in sequence', async () => { setItem('userId', '1'); const mockChatsData = { chatsByUserId: [ { _id: '1', isGroup: false, users: [{ _id: '1', firstName: 'John', lastName: 'Doe' }], messages: [], unseenMessagesByUsers: '{}', }, ], }; const mocks = [ { request: { query: CHATS_LIST, variables: { id: '1' }, }, result: { data: mockChatsData, }, }, ]; render( <MockedProvider mocks={mocks} addTypename={false}> <BrowserRouter> <Provider store={store}> <Chat /> </Provider> </BrowserRouter> </MockedProvider>, ); const allChatButton = await screen.findByTestId('allChat'); const unreadChatButton = await screen.findByTestId('unreadChat'); const groupChatButton = await screen.findByTestId('groupChat'); - await act(async () => { - fireEvent.click(unreadChatButton); - }); - await act(async () => { - await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, 0)); - }); + await userEvent.click(unreadChatButton); + await waitFor(() => { + expect(unreadChatButton).toHaveClass('active'); + }); - await act(async () => { - fireEvent.click(groupChatButton); - }); - await act(async () => { - await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, 0)); - }); + await userEvent.click(groupChatButton); + await waitFor(() => { + expect(groupChatButton).toHaveClass('active'); + }); - await act(async () => { - fireEvent.click(allChatButton); - }); - await act(async () => { - await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, 0)); - }); + await userEvent.click(allChatButton); + await waitFor(() => { + expect(allChatButton).toHaveClass('active'); + }); const contactCards = await screen.findAllByTestId('contactCardContainer'); expect(contactCards).toHaveLength(1); });Likely invalid or redundant comment.
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
palisadoes
merged commit c8a1290
into
PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Improved the test code coverage for the
screen: src/screens/UserPortal/Chat/Chat.tsxIssue Number:
Fixes #3037
Did you add tests for your changes?
yes
Snapshots/Videos:
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
yes
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Tests
Refactor