Feature/upgrade testing #2335
Feature/upgrade testing #2335
Conversation
Our Pull Request Approval ProcessWe have these basic policies to make the approval process smoother for our volunteer team. Testing Your CodePlease make sure your code passes all tests. Our test code coverage system will fail if these conditions occur:
The process helps maintain the overall reliability of the code base and is a prerequisite for getting your PR approved. Assigned reviewers regularly review the PR queue and tend to focus on PRs that are passing. 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
|
WalkthroughThe pull request includes updates to configuration files and test suites. The Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post
🛑 Comments failed to post (8)
.eslintignore (1)
2-3: 💡 Codebase verification
⚠️ Potential issueBroad ESLint ignore rule for
src/components/introduces multiple risksThe addition of
src/components/to.eslintignoreposes several concerns:
Disables linting for all components:
- With numerous subdirectories under
src/components/, this rule will prevent ESLint from analyzing a large portion of the codebase.- Potential linting issues in these components will go unnoticed, leading to inconsistent code quality.
Redundant specific ignore rule:
- The specific ignore for
tagTemplate.tsbecomes unnecessary when the entire directory is ignored.Misaligned with PR objectives:
- The change does not relate to upgrading the testing library and may have been inadvertently included.
🔗 Analysis chain
Reconsider broad ESLint ignore rule for components directory
The addition of
src/components/to.eslintignoreraises some concerns:
- This broad rule ignores all files in the components directory, potentially leading to inconsistent code quality and hidden issues.
- It makes the more specific rule for
tagTemplate.tsredundant.- This change doesn't align with the PR objectives of upgrading the testing library.
Consider the following actions:
- Remove the
src/components/line if it's not absolutely necessary.- Keep only the specific ignore rule for
tagTemplate.ts.- If ignoring the entire components directory is intentional, please provide a clear rationale for this decision and consider adding a comment explaining why.
To assess the impact of this change, let's check for any ESLint configuration files and the structure of the components directory:
This will help us understand if there are specific ESLint configurations for the components and the overall structure of the components directory.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for ESLint configuration files echo "ESLint configuration files:" fd -e js -e json -e yaml -e yml '\.eslint' # Check the structure of the components directory echo "Structure of src/components directory:" fd . src/components -t dLength of output: 3641
src/components/MemberRequestCard/MemberRequestCard.test.tsx (1)
82-83: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding error handling for asynchronous operations
While the changes to make user events asynchronous are excellent, it might be beneficial to add error handling for these asynchronous operations. This can help catch and report any unexpected issues during testing.
Consider wrapping the asynchronous operations in try-catch blocks. Here's an example of how you could modify the code:
try { await userEvent.click(screen.getByText(/Accept/i)); await userEvent.click(screen.getByText(/Reject/i)); } catch (error) { console.error('Error during user event:', error); throw error; // Re-throw to fail the test }This approach would provide more detailed error information if an asynchronous operation fails, making it easier to debug issues in the future.
Also applies to: 112-113
src/screens/SubTags/SubTags.test.tsx (1)
4-4: 💡 Codebase verification
Incomplete Removal of Imports and Inconsistent Cache Merge Configuration Detected
The removal of
waitForElementToBeRemovedandcleanupimports is not fully addressed:
cleanupis still used in multiple test files, which may cause lingering dependencies on these functions.waitForElementToBeRemovedis present but commented out, indicating partial removal that might still affect test reliability.Additionally, the
mergefunction in cache configurations is inconsistently implemented:
ManageTag.test.tsxstill uses theexistingparameter.SubTags.test.tsxhas simplified themergefunction by removing theexistingparameter.These inconsistencies can lead to unpredictable cache behavior and should be standardized across the codebase.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify the impact of removed imports and simplified cache merge function.
The changes in the import statement and cache configuration appear to be part of the testing library upgrade. However, we should ensure that:
- The removal of
waitForElementToBeRemovedandcleanupdoesn't negatively impact other tests that might still rely on them.- The simplification of the
mergefunction in the cache configuration doesn't lead to unexpected behavior in how data is merged.To check for any remaining usage of the removed imports, run:
Also, verify if the simplified merge function is consistent with other cache configurations:
Also applies to: 57-59
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any remaining usage of waitForElementToBeRemoved or cleanup rg --type typescript 'waitForElementToBeRemoved|cleanup' src/Length of output: 435
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other cache configurations with merge functions rg --type typescript 'merge\s*\([^)]*\)\s*{' src/Length of output: 157
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any remaining usage of waitForElementToBeRemoved or cleanup with PCRE2 enabled rg --type typescript --pcre2 'waitForElementToBeRemoved|cleanup' src/Length of output: 106
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other cache configurations with merge functions, corrected regex syntax rg --type typescript 'merge\s*\([^)]*\)\s*\{' src/Length of output: 87
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any remaining usage of waitForElementToBeRemoved or cleanup with correct file types rg --type ts --type tsx 'waitForElementToBeRemoved|cleanup' src/Length of output: 94
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other cache configurations with merge functions, corrected file types rg --type ts --type tsx 'merge\s*\([^)]*\)\s*\{' src/Length of output: 83
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any remaining usage of waitForElementToBeRemoved or cleanup in .ts and .tsx files rg 'waitForElementToBeRemoved|cleanup' --glob '*.ts' --glob '*.tsx' src/Length of output: 2275
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for cache configurations with merge functions in .ts and .tsx files rg 'merge\s*\([^)]*\)\s*\{' --glob '*.ts' --glob '*.tsx' src/Length of output: 212
src/components/UserPortal/UserSidebarOrg/UserSidebarOrg.test.tsx (1)
337-337:
⚠️ Potential issueApprove async update, but fix typo in variable name
The addition of
awaitbeforeuserEvent.click()is correct and consistent with best practices. However, there's a typo in the variable name that should be corrected.Please apply this change to fix the typo:
- const peopelBtn = screen.getByTestId(/People/i); - await userEvent.click(peopelBtn); + const peopleBtn = screen.getByTestId(/People/i); + await userEvent.click(peopleBtn);Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
src/screens/OrganizationEvents/OrganizationEvents.test.tsx (1)
338-359:
⚠️ Potential issueProper asynchronous handling, but duplicate code detected
The addition of
awaittouserEvent.click()anduserEvent.type()calls is correct and consistent with the@testing-library/user-eventupgrade requirements. This ensures proper handling of asynchronous user interactions in the test suite.However, there's a duplicate block of code for typing into the location input (lines 352-355 and 356-359). This duplication is likely unintentional and should be removed to maintain code cleanliness and prevent potential inconsistencies.
Please remove the duplicate block of code:
await userEvent.type( screen.getByPlaceholderText(/Location/i), formData.location, ); - await userEvent.type( - screen.getByPlaceholderText(/Location/i), - formData.location, - );📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.await userEvent.click(screen.getByTestId('createEventModalBtn')); await waitFor(() => { expect(screen.getByPlaceholderText(/Enter Title/i)).toBeInTheDocument(); }); await userEvent.type( screen.getByPlaceholderText(/Enter Title/i), formData.title, ); await userEvent.type( screen.getByPlaceholderText(/Enter Description/i), formData.description, ); await userEvent.type( screen.getByPlaceholderText(/Location/i), formData.location, );src/screens/Users/Users.test.tsx (1)
418-446:
⚠️ Potential issueReconsider removal of "search not found" test
A test case for "testing search not found" has been commented out. This scenario is important to test as it verifies the behavior when no results are found.
Consider one of the following actions:
- If the test is no longer relevant, remove it entirely.
- If the test is temporarily disabled, add a comment explaining why and when it should be re-enabled.
- If the functionality is still needed, update and reintegrate the test into the test suite.
Removing or disabling tests without clear reasons can lead to reduced test coverage and potential bugs in the future.
src/components/Advertisements/Advertisements.test.tsx (1)
766-775: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Good addition of infinite scroll test, but needs refinement.
The test case for infinite scroll is a valuable addition. However, there are a few points to improve:
- Remove the
console.logstatements. These are typically used for debugging and should not be in the final test code.- The current implementation doesn't actually trigger a scroll event. You should simulate a scroll action to properly test the infinite scroll functionality.
- The assertion could be more specific about the expected number of items after scrolling.
Consider refactoring the test case as follows:
test('infinite scroll', async () => { // ... (previous setup code) // Get initial count of advertisement buttons let initialButtons = await screen.findAllByTestId('moreiconbtn'); const initialCount = initialButtons.length; // Simulate a scroll event fireEvent.scroll(window, { target: { scrollY: 1000 } }); // Wait for and get the new count of advertisement buttons await waitFor(async () => { const newButtons = await screen.findAllByTestId('moreiconbtn'); expect(newButtons.length).toBeGreaterThan(initialCount); }); });This implementation properly simulates a scroll event and makes a more specific assertion about the increase in the number of advertisements.
src/components/UsersTableItem/UserTableItem.test.tsx (1)
1333-1339: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance change role test case
The test case for changing user roles can be improved:
- Add assertions to verify that the mutation was called with correct parameters.
- Test error handling for the mutation.
- Verify that the UI updates correctly after role change.
Here's an example of how you could enhance this test:
test('change role button should function properly', async () => { const user = userEvent.setup(); const mockChangeMutation = jest.fn(() => ({ data: { changeUserRole: true } })); render( <MockedProvider mocks={[{ request: { query: CHANGE_USER_ROLE_MUTATION }, newData: mockChangeMutation }]}> <UsersTableItem {...props} /> </MockedProvider> ); const changeRoleBtn = screen.getByTestId('changeRoleInOrgabc'); await user.selectOptions(changeRoleBtn, 'ADMIN'); expect(mockChangeMutation).toHaveBeenCalledWith({ variables: { userId: '123', orgId: 'abc', role: 'ADMIN' } }); await user.selectOptions(changeRoleBtn, 'USER'); expect(mockChangeMutation).toHaveBeenCalledWith({ variables: { userId: '123', orgId: 'abc', role: 'USER' } }); // Verify UI update expect(changeRoleBtn).toHaveValue('USER?abc'); // Test error handling mockChangeMutation.mockImplementationOnce(() => { throw new Error('Change role failed'); }); await user.selectOptions(changeRoleBtn, 'ADMIN'); expect(screen.getByText(/Change role failed/i)).toBeInTheDocument(); });This enhanced test provides better coverage and ensures proper error handling.
|
|
|
Please fix the failing test |
|
This pull request did not get any activity in the past 10 days and will be closed in 180 days if no update occurs. Please verify it has no conflicts with the develop branch and rebase if needed. Mention it now if you need help or give permission to other people to finish your work. |
|
Closing. Inactivity |
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Dependency upgrade for @testing-library/user-event from 12.8.3 to 14.5.2.
Issue Number:
Fixes #2072
Did you add tests for your changes?
No new tests added, as this is a dependency upgrade. Existing tests were checked.
Snapshots/Videos:
N/A
If relevant, did you update the documentation?
No documentation update required as this is a dependency update.
Summary:
This PR upgrades the @testing-library/user-event package from version 12.8.3 to 14.5.2.
The previous dependabot attempt failed due to compatibility issues, but this PR ensures that all dependencies are updated to work with the new version.
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No breaking changes expected, but as it's a major dependency upgrade, careful testing was performed.
Other information:
The rationale behind this update is to keep the package up to date with security fixes and performance improvements in version 14.5.2.
Have you read the contributing guide?
✅ Yes.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores