Refactor: src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Groups from Jest to Vitest #2584 #2638
Conversation
…om jest to vitest
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve migrating the testing framework for the Changes
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yaml 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🧰 Additional context used📓 Learnings (1)📓 Common learnings🔇 Additional comments (6)src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Groups/Groups.spec.tsx (6)
The necessary imports for Vitest have been properly added. Line range hint The new utility functions
The router mock has been properly migrated to use Vitest's mocking syntax and correctly uses 'useParams'.
The test cleanup has been correctly updated to use Vitest's
Each test case has been enhanced with clear JSDoc comments that describe its purpose, improving code maintainability. Also applies to: 129-131, 138-140, 170-172, 193-195, 217-219, 229-231, 240-242, 253-255 Line range hint The migration to Vitest looks complete, but let's verify there are no remaining Jest references in the codebase. ✅ Verification successfulThe search results show only one remaining Jest reference, which is the import of Migration to Vitest is complete and correct The only Jest reference found is the 🏁 Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: #!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining Jest references in the file
rg -i "jest" "src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Groups/Groups.spec.tsx"
# Search for any jest.* calls that might have been missed
ast-grep --pattern "jest.$_($_)" "src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Groups/Groups.spec.tsx"
Length of output: 301 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
|
![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.
![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 (1)
src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Groups/Groups.spec.tsx (1)
Line range hint
86-214: Consider modernizing test implementationWhile the tests are functional, consider these improvements for better maintainability:
- Consistently use
userEventinstead of mixingfireEventanduserEvent- Consider using
test.eachfor similar test cases (e.g., sorting tests)- Group related tests using
describeblocks for better organizationExample of using test.each for sorting tests:
interface SortTest { sortType: string; expectedFirstGroup: string; } const sortTests: SortTest[] = [ { sortType: 'volunteers_DESC', expectedFirstGroup: 'Group 1' }, { sortType: 'volunteers_ASC', expectedFirstGroup: 'Group 2' } ]; test.each(sortTests)('sorts by $sortType', async ({ sortType, expectedFirstGroup }) => { renderGroups(link1); const sortBtn = await screen.findByTestId('sort'); await userEvent.click(sortBtn); const sortOption = await screen.findByTestId(sortType); await userEvent.click(sortOption); const groupName = await screen.findAllByTestId('groupName'); expect(groupName[0]).toHaveTextContent(expectedFirstGroup); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Groups/Groups.spec.tsx(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Groups/Groups.spec.tsx (2)
18-19: LGTM: Correct imports for Vitest migration
The necessary imports for Vitest have been correctly added, including the test runner and DOM testing utilities.
82-82: LGTM: Correct cleanup implementation
The mock cleanup has been properly migrated from Jest to Vitest.
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
|
|
@palisadoes , Please look at the PR and see if I have made some errors . |
|
@DevyanshuNegi You need to make changes in develop-postgres branch and submit a new PR aginst it You can follow this |
|
This PR needs to be closed. The source and target PR branches are the same. This means that our reviewers will not be able to checkout the changes and test on their systems using this methodology which will cause a rejection error: Please follow these steps:
You should be only using the develop-postgres branch for changes to Closing |
Refactored src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Groups.test.tsx to src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Groups.spec.tsx
Issue: #2584 : #2584
Changes Implemented:
- Renamed the test file:
- Ran all tests successfully under the Vitest environment.
Refactor:
src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Groupsfrom Jest to Vitest #2584Other information
I have read the previous refactor PR and tried to keep things as uniform as possible.
Please suggest any other changes if required.
Summary by CodeRabbit