Refactored src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2482
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces a new unit test file named Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
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: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.spec.tsx (1)
9-14: Consider adding more test cases for comprehensive coverageWhile the basic test case is good, consider adding tests for:
- Empty label/children
- Long text content
- Optional props handling (if any)
Example structure:
describe('Testing Action Component', () => { const defaultProps = { children: 'dummy children', label: 'dummy label', }; test('renders with default props', () => { // Current test }); test('handles empty strings', () => { // Test with empty strings }); test('renders long content correctly', () => { // Test with long strings }); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.spec.tsx(1 hunks)vitest.config.ts(2 hunks)vitest.setup.ts(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- vitest.setup.ts
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.spec.tsx (1)
15-24: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance test robustness with better queries and interaction testing
The current implementation can be improved in several ways:
- Use more specific queries (e.g.,
getByRoleorgetByTestId) instead ofgetByText - Add error boundary testing
- Include user interaction tests if the component has any clickable elements
Example implementation:
test('should render and handle interactions correctly', () => {
const { getByRole, getByTestId } = render(
<Provider store={store}>
<Action {...props} />
</Provider>,
);
// Use more specific queries
const actionElement = getByRole('button', { name: props.label });
expect(actionElement).toBeInTheDocument();
// Test interactions if applicable
// userEvent.click(actionElement);
// expect(...).toHaveBeenCalled();
});Let's verify if the component has any interactive elements:
vitest.config.ts (2)
1-1: LGTM! Correct import source for Vitest configuration
The change from 'vite' to 'vitest/config' follows Vitest's recommended configuration approach.
18-18: Verify setup file and consider adding file extension
The setupFiles configuration correctly enables custom test setup for jest-dom support. However, let's verify the setup file exists and consider adding the file extension for clarity.
Consider updating the path to explicitly include the extension:
- setupFiles: 'vitest.setup.ts',
+ setupFiles: './vitest.setup.ts',✅ Verification successful
Setup file exists and contains jest-dom import - no changes needed
The verification confirms that:
- The setup file
vitest.setup.tsexists in the root directory - The file correctly imports
@testing-library/jest-dom
The suggested path update to ./vitest.setup.ts is unnecessary since Vitest correctly resolves the current path format, and both notations are functionally equivalent in this context.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the existence of setup file and its content
# Check if the setup file exists
if [ -f "vitest.setup.ts" ]; then
echo "Setup file exists"
# Verify jest-dom import
rg -l "@testing-library/jest-dom" "vitest.setup.ts"
else
echo "Setup file not found"
fi
Length of output: 139
|
Do we need ts-doc comments for the tests? |
|
@adithyanotfound Yes, add them and you can take reference of the PR linked in the issue |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop-postgres #2482 +/- ##
=====================================================
- Coverage 95.82% 83.78% -12.04%
=====================================================
Files 295 312 +17
Lines 7037 8117 +1080
Branches 1520 1776 +256
=====================================================
+ Hits 6743 6801 +58
- Misses 98 1177 +1079
+ Partials 196 139 -57 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
palisadoes
requested review from
pranshugupta54,
GlenDsza and
gautam-divyanshu
|
@palisadoes We need to open issues for other test file to migrate |
|
@varshith257 Can you do that? |
palisadoes
merged commit c2630ae
into
PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres
|
@palisadoes No! My University exams are ongoing now and I delegated the same to @prayanshch (well he also has exams). I will redirect this to any other contributor |
|
|
Yes, that makes sense |
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Refactoring
Issue Number:
Fixes #2474
Did you add tests for your changes?
Yes
Snapshots/Videos:
Summary
@testing-library/jest-domto support methodtoBeInTheDocument()Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No
Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes
Summary by CodeRabbit
Actioncomponent to enhance unit testing.@testing-library/jest-domto improve assertion capabilities in tests.