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.

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

Feat : Write Unittests for src/components/UserPortal/OrganizationCard/OrganizationCard.tsx #2393

Conversation

AnshulKahar2729
Copy link
Contributor

@AnshulKahar2729 AnshulKahar2729 commented Oct 31, 2024

What kind of change does this PR introduce?
feature

Issue Number:
Fixes #2370

Did you add tests for your changes?
Yes

Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Added a test case to verify the "manage" button functionality on the OrganizationCard component, ensuring users are redirected correctly.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Improved testing setup by updating the import statement for act to enhance test reliability.
  • Tests

    • Maintained existing tests while expanding coverage with new interaction scenarios.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 31, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies the test suite for the OrganizationCard component by changing the import source for act and adding a new test case to verify user interaction with the "manage" button. The new test checks if clicking the button redirects the user to the correct organization page. Existing tests remain unchanged, ensuring that the overall functionality and coverage of the tests are preserved while enhancing test coverage with the new scenario.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/components/UserPortal/OrganizationCard/OrganizationCard.test.tsx Updated import for act from @testing-library/react; added a new test case for the "manage" button click functionality. Existing tests remain unchanged.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Achieve 100% test coverage for OrganizationCard.tsx (#2370)
Ensure no functionality is removed in the testing process (#2370)
All tests must be valid and truly test the code base (#2370)

Possibly related PRs

  • Add Unit Tests for OrgPostCard #2265: The changes in the OrgPostCard.test.tsx file involve adding new test cases and modifying existing ones, similar to the enhancements made to the OrganizationCard.test.tsx in the main PR, both focusing on improving test coverage for their respective components.

Poem

In the card of orgs, we play,
With tests that dance and sway.
A button clicked, a path revealed,
Our coverage grows, our fate is sealed.
Hopping high, we cheer with glee,
For testing's fun, as it should be! 🐇✨


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 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.

Copy link

Our Pull Request Approval Process

We have these basic policies to make the approval process smoother for our volunteer team.

Testing Your Code

Please make sure your code passes all tests. Our test code coverage system will fail if these conditions occur:

  1. The overall code coverage drops below the target threshold of the repository
  2. Any file in the pull request has code coverage levels below the repository threshold
  3. Merge conflicts

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.

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

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 31, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.08%. Comparing base (e5f8a8b) to head (4354fcc).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #2393      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    98.04%   98.08%   +0.04%     
===========================================
  Files          249      249              
  Lines         7194     7194              
  Branches      2067     2055      -12     
===========================================
+ Hits          7053     7056       +3     
+ Misses         131      128       -3     
  Partials        10       10              

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

@AnshulKahar2729
Copy link
Contributor Author

@palisadoes looks clean to me, PTAL. For now, there are no suggestions from coderabbit.

@pranshugupta54
Copy link
Member

@AnshulKahar2729, please fix the description

@AnshulKahar2729
Copy link
Contributor Author

@AnshulKahar2729, please fix the description

Done, sorry I didn't notice.

@pranshugupta54
Copy link
Member

@coderabbitai full review

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 31, 2024

✅ Actions performed

Full review triggered.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/components/UserPortal/OrganizationCard/OrganizationCard.test.tsx (1)

229-259: Good test coverage for navigation, consider adding error cases.

The test effectively verifies the basic navigation flow. However, consider these improvements:

  1. Mock the navigation instead of relying on window.location:
// Mock useNavigate
const mockNavigate = jest.fn();
jest.mock('react-router-dom', () => ({
  ...jest.requireActual('react-router-dom'),
  useNavigate: () => mockNavigate,
}));

// Then assert
expect(mockNavigate).toHaveBeenCalledWith(`/user/organization/3`);
  1. Add test cases for:
    • Error states (e.g., navigation failure)
    • Edge cases (e.g., invalid organization ID)
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e5f8a8b and 4354fcc.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/components/UserPortal/OrganizationCard/OrganizationCard.test.tsx (2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/components/UserPortal/OrganizationCard/OrganizationCard.test.tsx (2)

1-2: LGTM! Good practice to import act from testing-library.

The change to import act from '@testing-library/react' instead of 'react' follows React Testing Library's best practices for testing React components.


Line range hint 1-260: Verify test coverage meets requirements.

The test suite provides good coverage of main functionality, but to ensure 100% coverage as required by issue #2370, consider adding tests for:

  1. Error handling:

    • Network errors in GraphQL mutations
    • Invalid server responses
    • Toast error notifications
  2. Edge cases:

    • Empty/null organization data
    • Missing required props
    • Invalid address formats
  3. Component state updates:

    • Loading states during API calls
    • UI updates after successful/failed operations

@palisadoes palisadoes merged commit ed2a945 into PalisadoesFoundation:develop Oct 31, 2024
12 checks passed
sethdivyansh pushed a commit to sethdivyansh/talawa-admin that referenced this pull request Oct 31, 2024
…d/OrganizationCard.tsx` (PalisadoesFoundation#2393)

* improve testcase for org card

* act function warning
sethdivyansh added a commit to sethdivyansh/talawa-admin that referenced this pull request Nov 2, 2024
pranshugupta54 added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 2, 2024
…le. (#2386)

* leftDrawerOrg:Fixed the org not found error on viewing admin profile.

* created getIdfromPath utitily function

* corrected test code

* removed unwanted newId variable

* added a comment for isProfilePage

* removed unwanted check in getIdFromPath func

* Revert "removed unwanted check in getIdFromPath func"

This reverts commit e1e86e3.

* Feat : Write Unittests for `src/components/UserPortal/OrganizationCard/OrganizationCard.tsx` (#2393)

* improve testcase for org card

* act function warning

* Added no pathname condition on getIdFromPath

* added useMemo hook

* Revert "Feat : Write Unittests for `src/components/UserPortal/OrganizationCard/OrganizationCard.tsx` (#2393)"

This reverts commit becd2d1.

* Updated comment to accurately reflect array indexing.

---------

Co-authored-by: Peter Harrison <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Anshul Kahar <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Pranshu Gupta <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Vamshi Maskuri <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants