Upgraded @mui/system and peer dependencies #2399
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request includes updates to 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
|
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
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #2399 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 98.08% 98.05% -0.03%
===========================================
Files 255 255
Lines 7208 7208
Branches 2102 2100 -2
===========================================
- Hits 7070 7068 -2
- Misses 128 130 +2
Partials 10 10 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
src/components/Pagination/Pagination.test.tsx (2)
Line range hint
33-43: Consolidate duplicate props definitionsThere are two separate props definitions in the file. Consider consolidating them to improve maintainability.
- const props = { - count: 5, - page: 10, - rowsPerPage: 5, - onPageChange: (): number => { - return 10; - }, - theme: { direction: 'rtl' }, - }; + const createTestProps = (options = {}) => ({ + count: 5, + page: 10, + rowsPerPage: 5, + onPageChange: jest.fn().mockReturnValue(10), + ...options + });
Line range hint
45-63: Improve RTL test implementationThe theme setup is correct, but the test can be improved:
- More specific test description needed
- User events should be awaited
- Missing assertions
Consider this improvement:
- test('Component should be rendered properly', async () => { + test('Component handles pagination interactions in RTL mode', async () => { const theme = createTheme({ direction: 'rtl', }); render( <BrowserRouter> <Provider store={store}> <ThemeProvider theme={theme}> - <Pagination {...props} /> + <Pagination {...createTestProps()} /> </ThemeProvider> </Provider> </BrowserRouter>, ); await act(async () => { - userEvent.click(screen.getByTestId(/nextPage/i)); - userEvent.click(screen.getByTestId(/previousPage/i)); + await userEvent.click(screen.getByTestId(/nextPage/i)); + // Verify RTL-specific behavior + expect(screen.getByTestId(/nextPage/i)).toHaveStyle({ marginRight: 'auto' }); + + await userEvent.click(screen.getByTestId(/previousPage/i)); + expect(props.onPageChange).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(2); }); });package.json (1)
15-22: Consider package size impact.The addition of new MUI packages and version updates may affect bundle size. Consider:
- Running bundle analysis to measure impact
- Tree-shaking effectiveness with new versions
- Potential code splitting opportunities for MUI components
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
jest.config.js(0 hunks)package.json(1 hunks)src/components/Pagination/Pagination.test.tsx(4 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- jest.config.js
🔇 Additional comments (5)
src/components/Pagination/Pagination.test.tsx (2)
1-1: LGTM: Proper import of act for async testing
The addition of act from React is appropriate for wrapping async operations in tests.
Line range hint 1-63: Verify MUI v6 compatibility
While the changes handle async operations correctly, let's verify the component's compatibility with MUI v6 styling system.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more specific information about the Pagination component's styling implementation.
The test changes and component implementation are MUI v6 compatible
The component and its tests are properly implemented for MUI v6 compatibility because:
- Uses standard
useThemehook from@mui/material/styles - Employs the supported
sxprop syntax for styling - Correctly implements RTL support through theme direction
- Test setup properly includes ThemeProvider with RTL configuration
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any MUI v5 to v6 breaking changes in styling
rg -l "import.*@mui/(system|styled-engine)" .
rg -l "sx=\{.*\}" .
Length of output: 653
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check Pagination component's styling implementation
cat src/components/Pagination/Pagination.tsx
# Check for any styled components usage
rg "styled\(" src/components/Pagination/Pagination.tsx
# Look for specific MUI v6 breaking changes in theme usage
rg "createTheme|ThemeProvider" src/components/Pagination/Pagination.tsx
Length of output: 4127
package.json (3)
15-15: Evaluate the necessity of @mui/base beta package.
The addition of @mui/[email protected] introduces a beta package to production dependencies. Consider:
- Is this package explicitly required?
- Are you aware of potential instability from beta versions?
- Could this be deferred until a stable release?
#!/bin/bash
# Check for actual usage of @mui/base components
echo "Searching for @mui/base usage..."
rg "import.*@mui/base"20-22: Ensure version alignment for MUI X packages.
The X-packages (@mui/x-charts, @mui/x-data-grid, @mui/x-date-pickers) are at version 7.22.1. Please verify:
- Compatibility with core MUI v6
- Any breaking changes in X-packages updates
- Consistent peer dependency requirements
#!/bin/bash
# Check for X package usage patterns that might need updates
echo "Searching for MUI X component usage..."
rg "import.*@mui/x-(charts|data-grid|date-pickers)"16-19: Verify breaking changes from MUI v5 to v6 upgrade.
The upgrade from v5 to v6 for core MUI packages typically involves breaking changes. Please ensure:
- All breaking changes from the MUI v6 migration guide have been addressed
- The codebase has been updated to handle any API changes
- All component usage follows v6 patterns
✅ Verification successful
The previous search didn't capture the core MUI usage patterns. This new script will:
- Search specifically for core MUI package imports
- Look for styling-related patterns with context
- Check for deprecated v5 patterns that are removed in v6
Let's analyze the results to verify if there are potential breaking changes from the v5 to v6 upgrade.
Based on the analysis of the shell script results, I can now provide a final response:
MUI v6 upgrade appears safe to proceed
The codebase scan reveals:
- No usage of deprecated v5 patterns (
experimentalStyled,makeStyles,withStyles,createStyles) - Standard usage of styling APIs (
styled,createTheme,ThemeProvider) that remain compatible in v6 - Primarily component imports from
@mui/materialand@mui/icons-materialthat maintain backward compatibility
The upgrade from v5 to v6 should be safe as the codebase follows stable patterns and doesn't use any deprecated APIs that were removed in v6.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for potentially affected MUI component usage
echo "Searching for MUI component imports..."
rg "import.*@mui/(material|system|private-theming|icons-material)"
echo "\nSearching for specific v5 patterns that might need updates..."
# Add specific patterns from migration guide that need changes
rg "useTheme|styled|createTheme"
Length of output: 11824
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for MUI core package imports and usage patterns
echo "Searching for MUI core imports..."
rg "from '@mui/(material|system|private-theming|icons-material)"
echo "\nSearching for MUI styling patterns..."
rg "import.*styled|createTheme|useTheme|ThemeProvider" -A 2
echo "\nSearching for specific v5 patterns that might need updates in v6..."
rg "experimentalStyled|makeStyles|withStyles|createStyles"
Length of output: 36442
varshith257
added
the
ignore-sensitive-files-pr
varshith257
merged commit 17c53a8
into
PalisadoesFoundation:develop
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Bugfix
Issue Number:
Fixes #2361
Did you add tests for your changes?
Not required.
Summary
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No.
Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Chores