improved code coverage #3294
improved code coverage #3294
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces improvements to the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
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: 0
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.tsx (1)
Line range hint
152-159: Remove code coverage ignore statement and ensure full test coverageThe use of
/* istanbul ignore else -- @preserve */indicates that this conditional block is being ignored by the code coverage tool. Since the goal of this PR is to achieve 100% test coverage, this ignore statement should be removed.Remove the code coverage ignore statement and ensure that the tests in
People.spec.tsxcover both branches of this conditional logic. This will resolve the pipeline failure and improve the reliability of the component.- /* istanbul ignore else -- @preserve */ if (mode == 0) { if (data) { setMembers(allMembers); } } else if (mode == 1) { if (data2) { setMembers(admins); } }🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: PR Workflow
[error] Contains code coverage disable statement. Please remove it and add the appropriate tests.
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx (2)
37-69: Consolidate MockData type definition for better maintainabilityThe
MockDatatype is defined to structure the mock data used in the tests. However, the current definition includes a deeply nested structure that might be hard to maintain and prone to errors if the GraphQL schema changes.Consider simplifying or modularizing the type definitions by extracting repeated interfaces and leveraging TypeScript's utility types for better readability and reusability. This will make it easier to update the mocks in the future.
133-161: Reduce code duplication by refactoring common utility functionsThere are multiple instances where utility functions like
renderComponent,wait, and mocked data are defined within differentdescribeblocks. This leads to code duplication and can make the tests harder to maintain.Consider extracting common utility functions and shared mocks to a separate module or a higher scope within the test file. This will promote code reuse and make it easier to manage changes.
Example refactor:
-// In multiple describe blocks -const renderComponent = (): RenderResult => { ... }; -const wait = async (ms = 100): Promise<void> => { ... }; +// At the top level of the test file +const wait = async (ms = 100): Promise<void> => { ... }; + +const renderComponent = (mocks: MockData[] = MOCKS): RenderResult => { + return render( + <MockedProvider addTypename={false} mocks={mocks}> + <BrowserRouter> + <Provider store={store}> + <I18nextProvider i18n={i18nForTest}> + <People /> + </I18nextProvider> + </Provider> + </BrowserRouter> + </MockedProvider>, + ); +}; +// In tests, use the shared utility functions +renderComponent(customMocks); +await wait();Also applies to: 355-409, 594-642, 868-950, 1065-1195
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.tsx (2)
Line range hint
70-148: Optimize admin data handling in useEffectThe
useEffecthooks for settingadminsand updatingmembersrely on state changes and may cause unnecessary re-renders.Consider combining related
useEffecthooks or using theuseMemohook to optimize performance and prevent redundant updates.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: PR Workflow
[error] Contains code coverage disable statement. Please remove it and add the appropriate tests.
Line range hint
186-244: Improve conditional rendering for members listIn the JSX, the code checks
members && members.length > 0to decide whether to render the list or a message.To enhance readability, consider using optional chaining and a more concise conditional rendering approach.
-{members && members.length > 0 ? ( +{members?.length ? (This simplifies the condition and handles cases where
membersmight be undefined or null.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: PR Workflow
[error] Contains code coverage disable statement. Please remove it and add the appropriate tests.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx(4 hunks)src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.tsx(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Actions: PR Workflow
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.tsx
[error] Contains code coverage disable statement. Please remove it and add the appropriate tests.
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (javascript)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx (3)
498-523: Confirm test coverage for mode switching logicThe test
'updates members list correctly when switching between all members and admins'aims to cover the mode switching logic in thePeoplecomponent.Please ensure that this test adequately covers both branches of the conditional logic in the
useEffecthook related to themodestate variable.Consider adding coverage reports to confirm that the lines are fully tested, and remove any code coverage ignore statements if they are no longer necessary.
1065-1195: Handle edge cases for 'rowsPerPage' correctlyThe tests related to pagination and
rowsPerPagehandle different values, including zero and 'All'. Ensure that the component correctly handles these values without errors.The tests appear comprehensive and correctly test the pagination logic with various
rowsPerPagevalues.
311-326: Ensure 'Loading...' state test is robustThe test checks for the 'Loading...' text immediately after rendering, which might pass even if the loading state is not properly handled due to the synchronous nature of the test.
To ensure the test accurately verifies the loading state, consider adding assertions that confirm the 'Loading...' text disappears after data is loaded.
expect(screen.getByText('Loading...')).toBeInTheDocument(); +await waitForElementToBeRemoved(() => screen.getByText('Loading...'));This makes sure that the loading state is displayed and then properly handled once the data fetching is complete.
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.tsx (1)
Line range hint
152-159: Verify mode switching logic handles undefined dataThe
useEffecthook sets themembersstate based on themode. Ifdataordata2is undefined, it may lead to unexpected behavior or runtime errors.Consider adding checks to ensure that
dataanddata2are defined before accessing their properties.if (mode == 0) { - if (data) { + if (data && allMembers) { setMembers(allMembers); } } else if (mode == 1) { - if (data2) { + if (data2 && admins) { setMembers(admins); } }This ensures that the component doesn't attempt to set the
membersstate with undefined values.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: PR Workflow
[error] Contains code coverage disable statement. Please remove it and add the appropriate tests.
|
@Cioppolo14 @palisadoes |
|
Please remove the istanbul statement |
@palisadoes, I have tried removing the /* istanbul ignore else -- @preserve */ statement, but after doing so, no matter how many tests I write for that line, the test coverage never reaches 100% because the else statement is missing. Could you please suggest how to handle this situation? |
|
Try adding an else statement with a no-op |
|
If that isn't an option then submit the PR with your best attempt given the circumstances |
* changed green to blue * updated funds section * people section css updated * updated Tags section * venues, action items, advertisments, plugins sections updated * fixed code coverage test * fixed code coverage test * CSS methodology added * fixed linting --------- Co-authored-by: Rahul Chougule <rahul.chougule@flairlabs.com>
…prove-code-coverage-src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.tsx
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx (3)
Line range hint
162-196: Consider using built-in testing-library utilities instead of custom wait function.The custom
waitfunction usingsetTimeoutcould lead to flaky tests. Consider usingwaitFororwaitForElementToBeRemovedfrom@testing-library/reactinstead, as they provide better error messages and retry mechanisms.Example usage:
-async function wait(ms = 100): Promise<void> { - await act(() => { - return new Promise((resolve) => { - setTimeout(resolve, ms); - }); - }); -} +// Use existing utilities instead +await waitFor(() => { + expect(element).toBeInTheDocument(); +});
1325-1337: Consider reducing the timeout and adding more specific assertions.The 2000ms timeout might be longer than necessary and could slow down the test suite. Also, the assertions could be more specific about what constitutes an admin role being displayed.
await waitFor( () => { expect(screen.getByText('Admin Test')).toBeInTheDocument(); - expect(screen.getByText('Admin')).toBeInTheDocument(); + // More specific assertion about admin role + expect(screen.getByText('Admin', { selector: '[data-testid="role-badge"]' })).toBeInTheDocument(); }, - { timeout: 2000 }, + { timeout: 1000 }, );
1223-1245: Consider adding error boundary test.While the test covers the edge case of missing search input, it would be beneficial to add a test case that verifies the error boundary handles component failures gracefully.
Example:
it('should handle component errors gracefully', async () => { const ErrorBoundary = ({ children }: { children: React.ReactNode }) => { return <div data-testid="error-boundary">{children}</div>; }; render( <ErrorBoundary> <People /> </ErrorBoundary> ); // Simulate an error const error = new Error('Test error'); act(() => { throw error; }); expect(screen.getByTestId('error-boundary')).toBeInTheDocument(); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx(4 hunks)src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.tsx(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.tsx
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx (3)
Line range hint
1-69: LGTM! Well-structured type definitions and comprehensive imports.The
MockDatatype is well-defined and includes all necessary fields for mocking GraphQL responses. The imports cover all required testing utilities.
133-161: LGTM! Comprehensive mock data coverage.The mock data includes both success and empty state scenarios, which is essential for thorough testing. The structure accurately reflects the GraphQL schema.
1200-1221: LGTM! Good coverage of edge cases.The test case effectively covers the non-Enter key press scenario and verifies that no search is triggered.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop-postgres #3294 +/- ##
===================================================
- Coverage 8.43% 8.43% -0.01%
===================================================
Files 310 310
Lines 8069 8070 +1
Branches 1792 1793 +1
===================================================
Hits 681 681
- Misses 7311 7312 +1
Partials 77 77
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
@palisadoes, I have tried my best. Except for branch coverage, every other type has reached 100%. |
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx (4)
311-326: Improve test description for loading state test.The test case verifies loading state correctly but could benefit from a more descriptive name that indicates what aspect of loading is being tested.
Consider renaming to:
- it('Shows loading state while fetching data', async () => { + it('displays loading indicator while fetching initial data and removes it after data loads', async () => {
328-350: Enhance member role update test assertions.The test verifies admin role updates but could be more comprehensive in its assertions.
Consider adding these assertions:
expect(screen.queryByText('Admin')).toBeInTheDocument(); + // Verify the original member is not visible + expect(screen.queryByText('Test User')).not.toBeInTheDocument(); + // Verify the admin badge/indicator is present + expect(screen.getByTestId('admin-badge')).toBeInTheDocument();
353-593: Add edge cases to pagination tests.The pagination tests cover the main functionality well, but consider adding these edge cases:
- Test behavior when changing page with empty results
- Test behavior when changing rows per page to a number larger than total items
- Test behavior when changing page while filtering results
Example test case:
it('handles pagination with filtered results correctly', async () => { renderComponent(); await wait(); // Filter results userEvent.type(screen.getByTestId('searchInput'), 'User0'); userEvent.click(screen.getByTestId('searchBtn')); await wait(); // Verify pagination reflects filtered results expect(screen.getByText('1-1 of 1')).toBeInTheDocument(); });
1200-1221: Enhance non-Enter key press test.The test for non-Enter key press could be more comprehensive.
Consider testing multiple non-Enter keys and verifying that the search function is not called:
it('should not trigger search for non-Enter key presses', async () => { const searchFn = vi.fn(); // Mock the search function vi.spyOn(React, 'useState').mockImplementation(() => ['', searchFn]); render(/* ... */); const searchInput = screen.getByTestId('searchInput'); const nonEnterKeys = ['A', 'Tab', 'Escape', 'ArrowDown']; for (const key of nonEnterKeys) { fireEvent.keyUp(searchInput, { key }); expect(searchFn).not.toHaveBeenCalled(); } });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx(4 hunks)src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.tsx(2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.tsx
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx (2)
37-69: Well-structured type definition for mock data!The
MockDatatype is well-defined and provides good type safety for the test data structure.
Line range hint
1-1400: Overall excellent test coverage with minor improvements needed.The test file demonstrates comprehensive coverage of the
Peoplecomponent with well-structured test cases. Key strengths:
- Good type safety with
MockDatatype- Comprehensive pagination testing
- Thorough edge case coverage
- Proper async/await patterns
Areas for improvement:
- Remove duplicate test cases
- Add more edge cases to pagination tests
- Enhance test descriptions
- Make non-Enter key press test more comprehensive
| it('renders sliced members correctly when rowsPerPage > 0', async () => { | ||
| const localMocks = [ | ||
| { | ||
| request: { | ||
| query: ORGANIZATIONS_MEMBER_CONNECTION_LIST, | ||
| variables: { orgId: '', firstName_contains: '' }, | ||
| }, | ||
| result: { | ||
| data: { | ||
| organizationsMemberConnection: { | ||
| edges: Array.from({ length: 6 }, (_, i) => ({ | ||
| _id: `id-${i}`, | ||
| firstName: `First${i}`, | ||
| lastName: `Last${i}`, | ||
| image: '', | ||
| email: `test${i}@example.com`, | ||
| userType: 'Member', | ||
| })), | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| request: { | ||
| query: ORGANIZATION_ADMINS_LIST, | ||
| variables: { id: '' }, | ||
| }, | ||
| result: { | ||
| data: { | ||
| organizations: [{ _id: 'org-1', admins: [] }], | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| ]; | ||
|
|
||
| render( | ||
| <MockedProvider mocks={localMocks} addTypename={false}> | ||
| <People /> | ||
| </MockedProvider>, | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| await waitFor(() => { | ||
| expect(screen.getByText('First0 Last0')).toBeInTheDocument(); | ||
| expect(screen.getByText('First4 Last4')).toBeInTheDocument(); | ||
| expect(screen.queryByText('First5 Last5')).not.toBeInTheDocument(); | ||
| }); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Remove duplicate test cases.
These test cases are duplicated:
renders sliced members correctly when rowsPerPage > 0passes expected props to PeopleCard components
They appear twice in the file with identical implementations.
Remove the duplicate test cases and consolidate the assertions into the original tests.
Also applies to: 1295-1342
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx (1)
Line range hint
1-1399: Overall good test coverage with room for organization improvements.The test suite successfully improves coverage of the People component, particularly for:
- Loading states
- Pagination
- Mode switching
- Edge cases
- Search functionality
However, there are several areas for improvement:
- Remove duplicate test cases to maintain a DRY codebase
- Add error state coverage
- Enhance assertions in basic functionality tests
These changes will make the test suite more maintainable while preserving the excellent coverage achieved.
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx (2)
Line range hint
162-310: Enhance test assertions for better coverage.While the basic functionality is tested, consider adding assertions to verify:
- Component state after each action
- Error states and edge cases
- Proper cleanup after each test
1065-1195: Consider adding error state tests.While the edge cases are well covered, consider adding tests for:
- Network errors
- Invalid data responses
- Error boundary behavior
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx(4 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: Test Application
- GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (javascript)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx (6)
Line range hint
1-161: Well-structured test setup with comprehensive type definitions!The mock data setup and type definitions are well-organized and provide a solid foundation for the test suite.
311-350: Good coverage of loading states and role updates!The new test cases effectively verify loading indicators and member role updates, contributing to better test coverage.
353-593: Excellent pagination test coverage!The pagination test suite thoroughly covers:
- Page navigation
- Rows per page changes
- Data rendering for different page sizes
594-691: Remove duplicate test cases.These test cases are duplicates of tests that appear later in the file (lines 1246-1342). Please consolidate them to maintain a DRY test suite.
750-951: Great coverage of mode switching scenarios!The test suite thoroughly covers mode transitions, edge cases, and empty states.
953-1063: Good additional test coverage for search and mode switching!The tests effectively verify partial name search and multiple mode switches.
| it('Sets userType to Admin if user is found in admins list', async (): Promise<void> => { | ||
| const adminMock = { | ||
| request: { | ||
| query: ORGANIZATION_ADMINS_LIST, | ||
| variables: { id: '' }, | ||
| }, | ||
| result: { | ||
| data: { | ||
| organizations: [ | ||
| { | ||
| _id: 'testOrg', | ||
| admins: [ | ||
| { | ||
| _id: 'admin123', | ||
| firstName: 'Test', | ||
| lastName: 'Admin', | ||
| email: 'admin@test.com', | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }; | ||
| const membersMock = { | ||
| request: { | ||
| query: ORGANIZATIONS_MEMBER_CONNECTION_LIST, | ||
| variables: { orgId: '', firstName_contains: '' }, | ||
| }, | ||
| result: { | ||
| data: { | ||
| organizationsMemberConnection: { | ||
| edges: [ | ||
| { | ||
| _id: 'admin123', | ||
| firstName: 'Test', | ||
| lastName: 'Admin', | ||
| email: 'admin@test.com', | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }; | ||
| const link = new StaticMockLink([adminMock, membersMock], true); | ||
| render( | ||
| <MockedProvider | ||
| mocks={[adminMock, membersMock]} | ||
| addTypename={false} | ||
| link={link} | ||
| > | ||
| <People /> | ||
| </MockedProvider>, | ||
| ); | ||
| await wait(); | ||
| expect(screen.getByText('Admin')).toBeInTheDocument(); | ||
| }); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consolidate admin role test cases.
This test case is duplicated later in the file (lines 1343-1399). Please remove one instance to avoid redundancy.
| }, | ||
| result: { | ||
| data: { | ||
| organizationsMemberConnection: { | ||
| edges: [ | ||
| { | ||
| _id: 'mockId1', | ||
| firstName: 'John', | ||
| lastName: 'Doe', | ||
| image: 'mockImage', | ||
| email: 'john@example.com', | ||
| userType: 'Member', | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| request: { | ||
| query: ORGANIZATION_ADMINS_LIST, | ||
| variables: { id: '' }, | ||
| }, | ||
| result: { | ||
| data: { | ||
| organizations: [{ _id: 'org-1', admins: [] }], | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| ]; | ||
|
|
||
| render( | ||
| <MockedProvider mocks={localMocks} addTypename={false}> | ||
| <People /> | ||
| </MockedProvider>, | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| await waitFor(() => { | ||
| expect(screen.getByText('John Doe')).toBeInTheDocument(); | ||
| expect(screen.getByText('john@example.com')).toBeInTheDocument(); | ||
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('Sets userType to Admin if user is found in admins list', async (): Promise<void> => { | ||
| const adminMock = { | ||
| request: { | ||
| query: ORGANIZATION_ADMINS_LIST, | ||
| variables: { id: '' }, | ||
| }, | ||
| result: { | ||
| data: { | ||
| organizations: [ | ||
| { | ||
| _id: 'testOrg', | ||
| admins: [ | ||
| { | ||
| _id: 'admin123', | ||
| firstName: 'Test', | ||
| lastName: 'Admin', | ||
| email: 'admin@test.com', | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }; | ||
| const membersMock = { | ||
| request: { | ||
| query: ORGANIZATIONS_MEMBER_CONNECTION_LIST, | ||
| variables: { orgId: '', firstName_contains: '' }, | ||
| }, | ||
| result: { | ||
| data: { | ||
| organizationsMemberConnection: { | ||
| edges: [ | ||
| { | ||
| _id: 'admin123', | ||
| firstName: 'Test', | ||
| lastName: 'Admin', | ||
| email: 'admin@test.com', | ||
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }, | ||
| }; | ||
| const link = new StaticMockLink([adminMock, membersMock], true); | ||
| render( | ||
| <MockedProvider | ||
| mocks={[adminMock, membersMock]} | ||
| addTypename={false} | ||
| link={link} | ||
| > | ||
| <People /> | ||
| </MockedProvider>, | ||
| ); | ||
| await wait(); | ||
| expect(screen.getByText('Admin')).toBeInTheDocument(); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consolidate tests while keeping the valuable new coverage.
The new test cases for non-Enter key press and empty input search add value. However:
- The test for sliced members (lines 1246-1292) is duplicated from lines 594-642
- The test for PeopleCard props (lines 1294-1342) is duplicated from lines 644-691
- The admin role test (lines 1343-1399) is duplicated from lines 692-749
Please consolidate these duplicate tests while keeping the unique coverage for keyboard events and empty input handling.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx (2)
1214-1220: Improve async testing patterns.Instead of using arbitrary timeouts, consider using
waitFororwaitForElementToBeRemovedfrom@testing-library/reactfor more reliable async testing:- await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, 100)); - expect(screen.queryByText('Loading...')).not.toBeInTheDocument(); + await waitFor(() => { + expect(screen.queryByText('Loading...')).not.toBeInTheDocument(); + });This approach is more reliable as it automatically retries the assertion until it passes or times out.
Also applies to: 1237-1244
750-1195: Improve test organization.Consider consolidating related test suites to improve maintainability:
People Component Mode Switch CoverageandPeople Additional Flow Testscould be merged as they both test mode switching functionality.Testing People Screen Edge CasesandPeople Component Additional Coverage Testscould be combined as they both test edge cases.This would make the test file more organized and easier to maintain.
Also applies to: 1197-1302
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx(4 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Test Application
🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.spec.tsx (4)
1-10: Well-structured type definitions and imports!The new
MockDatatype and additional testing utilities improve type safety and testing capabilities.Also applies to: 37-69
692-749: Remove duplicate test case for admin role verification.This test case is duplicated. The same test appears twice:
- First occurrence: lines 692-749
- Second occurrence: lines 1246-1302
Please remove one instance to maintain code clarity.
Also applies to: 1246-1302
594-642: Consolidate duplicate test cases for member display.These test cases are duplicated elsewhere in the file:
renders sliced members correctly when rowsPerPage > 0passes expected props to PeopleCard componentsPlease remove the duplicates while preserving any unique test coverage.
Also applies to: 644-691
1200-1244: Good coverage of edge cases!The test cases for non-Enter key press and empty input search add valuable coverage for edge cases.
Dhiren-Mhatre
deleted the
test/improve-code-coverage-src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.tsx
branch
|
The branch name was too long, which was causing an error. I will create a new branch and raise a PR again, making sure it doesn't happen again. |
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Test Coverage Improvement
Issue Number:
Fixes #3042
Snapshots/Videos:
Screencast.from.2025-01-16.15-16-07.webm
If relevant, did you update the documentation?
No documentation updates required for test coverage improvements.
Summary
This PR improves the test coverage for
src/screens/UserPortal/People/People.tsxto achieve 100% coverage. Key changes include:The changes ensure better code reliability through comprehensive testing without modifying the actual component functionality.
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No
Checklist
CodeRabbit AI Review
Test Coverage
Other information
This PR is focused solely on improving test coverage for the People component. All new tests follow the established testing patterns in the codebase and use the recommended testing utilities.
Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Tests
Improvements