Refactor : Added Vitest to Requests Screen #2653
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request refactors the test suite for the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
src/screens/Requests/Requests.spec.tsx (3)
23-45: LGTM! Consider adding TypeScript types for better type safety.The Vitest setup for mocking
localStorageandwindow.locationis well-implemented and documented.Consider adding TypeScript interfaces for better type safety:
interface MockStorage { getItem: ReturnType<typeof vi.fn>; setItem: ReturnType<typeof vi.fn>; clear: ReturnType<typeof vi.fn>; removeItem: ReturnType<typeof vi.fn>; } interface MockLocation { href: string; assign: ReturnType<typeof vi.fn>; reload: ReturnType<typeof vi.fn>; }
57-63: Consider enhancing the wait utility function.While the implementation is correct, consider these improvements for better reliability:
async function wait(ms = 100): Promise<void> { + if (ms < 0) { + throw new Error('Timeout must be non-negative'); + } await act(() => { - return new Promise((resolve) => { + return new Promise((resolve, reject) => { + if (process.env.CI) { + ms *= 2; // Double the timeout in CI environment + } setTimeout(resolve, ms); }); }); }This enhancement:
- Validates the timeout value
- Doubles the timeout in CI environments where operations might be slower
Line range hint
1-300: Consider improving test implementation for better maintainability.The test suite is comprehensive but could benefit from these improvements:
- Consider extracting magic numbers into named constants:
const TIMEOUT = { DEFAULT: 100, EXTENDED: 200, CI: process.env.CI ? 400 : 200 } as const;
- Consider grouping related tests using nested describe blocks:
describe('Requests Screen', () => { describe('Rendering', () => { test('renders properly for admin users', ...); test('renders properly for non-admin users', ...); }); describe('Search Functionality', () => { test('handles valid search input', ...); test('handles empty search results', ...); }); });
- Consider adding data-testid attributes consistently:
const TEST_IDS = { COMPONENT: 'testComp', SEARCH_INPUT: 'searchByName', SEARCH_BUTTON: 'searchButton' } as const;These changes would improve maintainability and make the tests more structured.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/screens/Requests/Requests.spec.tsx(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/screens/Requests/Requests.spec.tsx (1)
Line range hint 1-300: Verify test configuration and cleanup.
Let's ensure the test setup is complete and properly handles cleanup.
✅ Verification successful
Test configuration and cleanup are properly implemented ✅
The test setup is well-configured with:
- Proper Vitest configuration with coverage settings and environment setup
- Consistent use of
beforeEach/afterEachhooks across test files - Global cleanup through
localStorage.clear()inafterEach - Proper test environment setup with
@testing-library/jest-dom - Correct Vitest imports and mocking utilities
The current implementation follows testing best practices and properly handles cleanup to prevent memory leaks.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for proper Vitest configuration and potential memory leaks
# Check if vitest config exists and contains proper setup
echo "Checking Vitest configuration..."
fd -t f "vitest.config" -x cat {}
# Check for afterEach cleanup in other test files
echo "Checking cleanup patterns in other test files..."
rg "afterEach|cleanup|beforeEach" -t typescript -t javascript
# Check for proper import patterns
echo "Checking Vitest import patterns..."
rg "from ['|\"]vitest['|\"]" -t typescript -t javascript
Length of output: 1383
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try with correct file type flags for ripgrep
# Check for cleanup patterns in test files
echo "Checking cleanup patterns in test files..."
rg "afterEach|cleanup|beforeEach" --type-add 'ts:*.{ts,tsx}' --type-add 'js:*.{js,jsx}' --type ts --type js
# Check for Vitest import patterns
echo "Checking Vitest import patterns..."
rg "from ['|\"]vitest['|\"]" --type-add 'ts:*.{ts,tsx}' --type-add 'js:*.{js,jsx}' --type ts --type js
# Check for setup files
echo "Checking Vitest setup file..."
fd "vitest.setup" -x cat {}
Length of output: 9431
|
We have a policy of unassigning contributors who close PRs without getting validation from our reviewer team. This is because:
Please be considerate of our volunteers' limited time and our desire to improve our code base. This policy is stated as a pinned post in all our Talawa repositories. Our YouTube videos explain why this practice is not acceptable to our Community. Unfortunately, if this continues we will have to close the offending PR and unassign you from the issue.
|
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Added Vitest to Requests Screen
Issue Number: 2569
Fixes #2569
Did you add tests for your changes?
Yes
Snapshots/Videos:
If relevant, did you update the documentation?
Summary
Migrated the testing framework to Vitest.
Updated all test files and configurations to be compatible with Vitest's syntax and features.
Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes
Summary by CodeRabbit
Requestscomponent with improved mocking oflocalStorageandwindow.location.