Upgrade @pdfme/generator to 5.0.0 #2413
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 changes in this pull request include updates to the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yaml 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
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
|
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Congratulations on making your first PR! 🎊 If you haven't already, check out our Contributing Guidelines and PR Reporting Guidelines to ensure that you are following our guidelines for contributing and creating PR.
Kunalpal216
force-pushed
the
upgrade-@pdfme/generator-4.5.2-to-5.0.0
branch
from
a6ff346 to
b46bdaa
Compare
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #2413 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 98.28% 98.28%
========================================
Files 283 283
Lines 8221 8224 +3
Branches 2381 2382 +1
========================================
+ Hits 8080 8083 +3
Misses 132 132
Partials 9 9 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.test.ts (1)
3-18: Test suite structure looks good, but consider adding error cases.The test suite effectively covers the happy path with three well-structured test cases:
- Verifies async/Promise behavior
- Validates return type
- Checks actual values
However, since this is mocking a PDF generator, consider adding test cases for:
- Error scenarios that the real generator might encounter
- Edge cases with different input parameters (if the real function accepts any)
Example test cases to consider:
test('should handle error scenarios', async () => { // Mock error cases that might occur in the real generator await expect(generate(/* invalid params */)).rejects.toThrow(); }); test('should handle different input parameters', async () => { // Test with various input combinations if the real function accepts parameters const result = await generate(/* different params */); expect(result).toBeInstanceOf(Uint8Array); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.test.ts(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.test.ts (2)
15-16: Verify if the mock values match the real implementation's behavior.
The hardcoded values [10, 20, 30, 40, 50] seem arbitrary. We should verify if these values are sufficient for testing the actual usage of the generated PDF data in the codebase.
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find actual usage of the generate function to understand the expected behavior
# Expected: Locate files that use the real @pdfme/generator to verify if our mock is sufficient
# Search for imports and usage of @pdfme/generator
rg -l "@pdfme/generator" --type ts --type tsx
# Search for specific uses of the generate function
ast-grep --pattern 'generate($$$)'1-1: Verify the mock implementation exists.
Let's ensure the imported mock file exists and contains the necessary implementation.
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the existence and content of the mock generator file
# Expected: Find the mock implementation of the generate function
# Check if the mock file exists and show its content
fd --type f "generator.ts" --exec cat {} \; --base-directory "scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme"
pranshugupta54
added
the
ignore-sensitive-files-pr
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.ts (2)
11-11: Simplify object parameterThe object parameter spreading is redundant as the property names match.
- return await pdfmeGenerate({ template: template, inputs }); + return await pdfmeGenerate({ template, inputs });
4-12: Add input validation and error handlingThe mock should validate inputs and handle errors to better mimic the real implementation.
Consider adding basic validation:
export const generate = async ({ template, inputs, }: { template: Template; inputs: Record<string, string>[]; }): Promise<Uint8Array> => { + if (!template || !inputs) { + throw new Error('Template and inputs are required'); + } + if (!Array.isArray(inputs)) { + throw new Error('Inputs must be an array'); + } return await pdfmeGenerate({ template, inputs }); };
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.test.ts(1 hunks)scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- scripts/mocks/@pdfme/generator.test.ts
🔇 Additional comments (1)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.ts (1)
1-2: Verify the import path resolution
The import from '@pdfme/generator' might still cause Jest to fail. Let's verify if this import is being correctly mocked.
✅ Verification successful
The import path resolution is correctly configured
The import path is properly set up in Jest's configuration:
- The
moduleNameMapperin jest.config.js correctly maps@pdfme/generatorto the mock implementation - The mock implementation exists at the correct location
- The mock has proper test coverage
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if there are any Jest moduleNameMapper configurations for @pdfme/generator
rg -l "moduleNameMapper.*@pdfme/generator" jest.config.*
# Check for any other mock implementations of @pdfme/generator
fd -g "*generator*" -t f scripts/__mocks__
Length of output: 185
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of jest.config.js to see if @pdfme/generator is properly mapped
cat jest.config.js
# Also check the mock implementation and its test
cat scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.ts
cat scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.test.ts
Length of output: 2987
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.ts (2)
10-17: Consider enhancing mock data generation.While the current implementation works, consider making the mock data more realistic for testing edge cases:
export const generate = async ({ template, inputs, }: { template: Template; inputs: Record<string, string>[]; }): Promise<Uint8Array> => { - const mockLength = Math.min(template.schemas.length, inputs.length); - const mockReturnList = []; - for (let i = 1; i <= mockLength; i++) { - mockReturnList.push(i); - } - return Promise.resolve(new Uint8Array(mockReturnList)); + // Generate mock PDF-like header bytes + const pdfHeader = [0x25, 0x50, 0x44, 0x46]; // %PDF + // Add some random content based on input size + const contentSize = Math.min(template.schemas.length, inputs.length) * 10; + const mockContent = Array.from( + { length: contentSize }, + () => Math.floor(Math.random() * 256) + ); + return Promise.resolve(new Uint8Array([...pdfHeader, ...mockContent])); };This enhancement:
- Adds PDF magic bytes for more realistic testing
- Generates variable-length content based on inputs
- Uses random bytes to catch potential encoding issues
3-9: Consider adding error simulation capabilities.For comprehensive testing, it would be valuable to simulate error conditions that might occur in the actual PDF generation.
+interface GenerateOptions { + template: Template; + inputs: Record<string, string>[]; + mockError?: boolean; // For testing error handling +} + export const generate = async ({ template, inputs, + mockError = false, -}: { - template: Template; - inputs: Record<string, string>[]; +}: GenerateOptions): Promise<Uint8Array> => { + if (mockError) { + throw new Error('Mock PDF generation error'); + }This allows tests to verify error handling paths in the code that uses this generator.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.ts(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.ts (1)
1-17: LGTM! The mock implementation follows best practices.
The mock correctly:
- Maintains type safety with proper TypeScript types
- Avoids actual package dependencies
- Provides deterministic test data
- Respects input constraints by using minimum length
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.ts (1)
10-18: Consider making the mock more deterministic and robust.While the current implementation provides a realistic PDF-like structure, there are a few improvements to consider:
- The random content might make tests non-deterministic
- Missing null check for template.schemas
Consider this improved implementation:
export const generate = async ({ template, inputs, }: { template: Template; inputs: Record<string, string>[]; }): Promise<Uint8Array> => { // Generate mock PDF-like header bytes const pdfHeader = [0x25, 0x50, 0x44, 0x46]; // %PDF + if (!template?.schemas) { + throw new Error('Invalid template: schemas is required'); + } // Add some random content based on input size const contentSize = Math.min(template.schemas.length, inputs.length) * 10; - const mockContent = Array.from({ length: contentSize }, () => - Math.floor(Math.random() * 256), - ); + // Use deterministic content for consistent testing + const mockContent = Array.from({ length: contentSize }, (_, i) => i % 256); return Promise.resolve(new Uint8Array([...pdfHeader, ...mockContent])); };
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.ts(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.ts (2)
1-2: LGTM! Clean type-only import.
The import statement correctly uses type-only import for Template, maintaining clean separation between types and runtime code.
3-9: LGTM! Function signature matches the package interface.
The mock implementation correctly matches the expected interface of @pdfme/generator's generate function. Let's verify this against the actual package interface.
✅ Verification successful
Mock implementation correctly matches the package interface
The verification confirms that:
- The mock's function signature is being used correctly in the codebase (src/components/CheckIn/TableRow.tsx)
- The implementation follows the expected interface with proper types (Template and Record<string,string>[])
- The mock generates valid PDF-like content for testing purposes
- Package is properly listed in dependencies (@pdfme/generator@^5.0.0)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that our mock matches the actual package interface
# Expected: The actual package should export a generate function with similar signature
# Search for the generate function definition in node_modules
fd -t f "generator.(js|ts|d.ts)" node_modules/@pdfme -x cat {} | rg -A 5 "export.*generate.*="
Length of output: 205
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try searching for the package.json to understand the dependencies first
fd -t f "package.json" -x cat {}
# Also search for any references to @pdfme/generator in the codebase
rg "@pdfme/generator" -A 3 -B 3
Length of output: 7748
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual usage of the generate function to understand the interface
ast-grep --pattern 'generate({$$$})'
# Also let's check the mock implementation
cat scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.ts
Length of output: 998
…n into upgrade-@pdfme/generator-4.5.2-to-5.0.0
…Kunalpal216/talawa-admin into upgrade-@pdfme/generator-4.5.2-to-5.0.0
|
@pranshugupta54 I have added tests for my additions but still the codecov test seems to not meet. Can you help ? |
https://app.codecov.io/gh/PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-admin/pull/2413/indirect-changes |
|
@pranshugupta54 Seems like |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.ts (2)
10-12: Consider separating error cases for better testing.While the error handling is good, combining both checks into a single condition makes it harder to test and handle specific error cases separately.
Consider separating the checks:
- if (template.schemas.length === 0 || inputs.length === 0) { - throw new Error('Template or inputs cannot be empty.'); + if (template.schemas.length === 0) { + throw new Error('Template schemas cannot be empty.'); + } + if (inputs.length === 0) { + throw new Error('Inputs cannot be empty.'); }
13-21: Consider using deterministic content for consistent testing.While the current implementation creates valid mock data, using random content might make tests non-deterministic. Consider using a predictable pattern based on the input data.
Here's a suggested improvement:
const pdfHeader = [0x25, 0x50, 0x44, 0x46]; // %PDF const contentSize = Math.min(template.schemas.length, inputs.length) * 10; - const mockContent = Array.from({ length: contentSize }, () => - Math.floor(Math.random() * 256), - ); + // Generate deterministic content based on input data + const mockContent = Array.from({ length: contentSize }, (_, index) => + (index % 256) // Creates a repeating pattern + ); return Promise.resolve(new Uint8Array([...pdfHeader, ...mockContent]));
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.test.ts(1 hunks)scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.ts(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- scripts/mocks/@pdfme/generator.test.ts
🔇 Additional comments (2)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.ts (2)
1-2: LGTM! Clean type import.
The import is correctly scoped to only the necessary type definition.
3-9: LGTM! Well-typed function signature.
The function signature correctly mirrors the actual @pdfme/generator API with proper TypeScript types, making it a suitable mock for testing.
|
@pranshugupta54 Can you review this PR ? The test coverage issue has been resolved. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/components/CheckIn/TableRow.tsx (1)
Line range hint
69-89: Improve test coverage for error scenarios.The PR comments mention code coverage issues, and there are multiple
istanbul ignoremarkers. Consider adding test cases for:
- Invalid name scenarios
- PDF generation failures
- Error message handling
Would you like me to help generate comprehensive test cases for these scenarios?
src/components/CheckIn/TableRow.test.tsx (1)
134-175: Consider enhancing test coverage with additional scenarios.While the current test is good, consider these improvements for better coverage:
- Verify that
window.openwasn't called when generation fails- Add cleanup of mocks in afterEach
- Add tests for other failure scenarios (e.g., network errors, invalid data)
Example enhancement:
test('If PDF generation fails, the error message should be shown', async () => { // ... existing test code ... fireEvent.click(await findByText('Download Tag')); expect( await findByText( 'Error generating pdf: Template or inputs cannot be empty.', ), ).toBeInTheDocument(); + expect(global.window.open).not.toHaveBeenCalled(); }); +afterEach(() => { + jest.restoreAllMocks(); +});
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.ts(1 hunks)src/components/CheckIn/TableRow.test.tsx(2 hunks)src/components/CheckIn/TableRow.tsx(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- scripts/mocks/@pdfme/generator.ts
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/components/CheckIn/TableRow.tsx (1)
69-72: Verify @pdfme/generator v5.0.0 compatibility.
Since we're upgrading to @pdfme/generator v5.0.0, we should verify if the new version handles empty inputs differently.
✅ Verification successful
Let me generate additional scripts to gather more information about how @pdfme/generator is being used in the codebase.
Let me generate additional scripts to understand how @pdfme/generator is being used in tests and if there are any breaking changes in v5.0.0.
Based on the code analysis so far, I can see that:
- The project is already using @pdfme/generator v5.0.0 (from package.json)
- The code in TableRow.tsx uses a simple generate() call with template and inputs
- The test files show basic usage patterns that match the current implementation
- No breaking changes documentation was found
Since we couldn't find any changelog or breaking changes documentation, and the code is already using v5.0.0 with a simple generate() call that follows standard PDF generation patterns, I'll generate the final response:
No compatibility issues found with @pdfme/generator v5.0.0
The code is already using v5.0.0 and follows a standard pattern for PDF generation. The empty inputs handling appears to be properly implemented with a validation check before pushing to the inputs array.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any migration guides or breaking changes documentation
fd -g "CHANGELOG.md" -g "MIGRATION.md" -g "BREAKING-CHANGES.md" -g "README.md" | xargs rg -i "5\.0\.0|breaking changes|migration"
# Search for other usages of @pdfme/generator in the codebase
rg "from '@pdfme/generator'" -A 5
Length of output: 10949
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the tagTemplate file to understand the template structure
rg -l "tagTemplate" | xargs cat
# Search for any test files related to PDF generation
fd -e test.tsx -e test.ts -e spec.tsx -e spec.ts | xargs rg "generate.*pdf"
# Search for other instances where generate is used with inputs
ast-grep --pattern 'generate($$$)'
Length of output: 101724
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for package.json to see previous version
cat package.json | grep "@pdfme/generator"
# Search for any test files that use @pdfme/generator
rg -l "@pdfme/generator" | grep "test\|spec"
# Search for any mock implementations
rg -l "@pdfme/generator" | grep "mock"
# Search for any changelog or readme files in node_modules
fd -g "CHANGELOG.md" -g "README.md" node_modules/@pdfme
Length of output: 375
src/components/CheckIn/TableRow.test.tsx (2)
2-2: LGTM! Good cleanup of unused imports.
The removal of waitFor is appropriate as the tests are using findByText for async operations, which is the recommended approach.
134-175: LGTM! Good addition of error handling test.
The test effectively verifies the error message display when PDF generation fails due to empty name.
|
LGTM |
|
PTAL @varshith257 |
varshith257
merged commit 9dd5d7f
into
PalisadoesFoundation:develop
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
bugfix
Issue Number:
Fixes #2317
Did you add tests for your changes?
Not required.
Summary
Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes
Summary by CodeRabbit
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
generatefunction for testing, returning a data array as expected from the original generate utility from@pdfme/generator.TableRowcomponent to verify appropriate error handling when PDF generation fails.Dependencies
@pdfme/generatorpackage to version5.0.0, potentially introducing new features and improvements.Configuration Updates
whatwg-fetch.