Refactor:Vitest to OrgPeople Screen #2663
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request focuses on refactoring the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
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 (1)src/components/OrganizationScreen/OrganizationScreen.test.tsx (1)
The changes to use Also applies to: 88-88 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 (4)
src/screens/OrganizationPeople/OrganizationPeople.spec.tsx (4)
17-17: Remove commented-out importThe commented import
jest-location-mockis no longer needed after migration to Vitest.-// import 'jest-location-mock';
31-47: Add TypeScript types to window.location mockThe window.location mock implementation is comprehensive but could benefit from type safety.
Object.defineProperty(window, 'location', { value: { + // Define the type for the mock implementation + type Location = { + href: string; + assign: (url: string) => void; + reload: () => void; + pathname: string; + search: string; + hash: string; + origin: string; + }; + href: 'http://localhost/', - assign: vi.fn((url) => { + assign: vi.fn((url: string) => { const urlObj = new URL(url, 'http://localhost'); window.location.href = urlObj.href; window.location.pathname = urlObj.pathname; window.location.search = urlObj.search; window.location.hash = urlObj.hash; }), reload: vi.fn(), pathname: '/', search: '', hash: '', origin: 'http://localhost', - }, + } as Location, });
624-630: Consider using explicit module path in vi.mockThe React Router mock implementation is correct, but could be more explicit.
-vi.mock('react-router-dom', async () => { +vi.mock('@/node_modules/react-router-dom', async () => { const actualDom = await vi.importActual('react-router-dom'); return { ...actualDom, useParams: (): Readonly<Params<string>> => ({ orgId: linkURL }), }; });
714-714: Enhance URL assertion messagesThe URL assertions could be more descriptive to help with debugging test failures.
-expect(window.location.href).toBe('http://localhost/orgpeople/orgid'); +expect(window.location.href).toBe( + 'http://localhost/orgpeople/orgid', + 'URL should match the organization people page path' +);Also applies to: 736-736, 784-784, 823-823, 886-886, 936-936, 1287-1289, 1322-1324, 1413-1413
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/screens/OrganizationPeople/OrganizationPeople.spec.tsx(12 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (2)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: bitbard3
PR: PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-admin#2588
File: src/components/ChangeLanguageDropdown/ChangeLanguageDropdown.spec.tsx:145-155
Timestamp: 2024-12-02T04:20:11.745Z
Learning: In PRs focused solely on refactoring test cases from Jest to Vitest, avoid suggesting optimizations or changes outside the migration scope.
src/screens/OrganizationPeople/OrganizationPeople.spec.tsx (1)
Learnt from: meetulr
PR: PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-admin#2425
File: src/screens/MemberDetail/MemberDetail.test.tsx:100-100
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T10:40:58.654Z
Learning: In `src/screens/MemberDetail/MemberDetail.test.tsx`, using `await wait();` is acceptable to wait for the render to complete.
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/screens/OrganizationPeople/OrganizationPeople.spec.tsx (2)
Line range hint 48-622: Mock data setup looks good
The test data setup and mock configurations are well-structured and compatible with Vitest.
Line range hint 1-1415: Overall test migration looks good
The migration from Jest to Vitest has been implemented correctly. The test suite maintains good coverage and follows testing best practices. The changes are consistent with the PR objectives.
|
@palisadoes the tests are only failing due to run jest tests on .test.tsx files (could not parse css stylesheet)...These are even failing after cloning the repo and running the command without making any code change |
|
Please fix the failing tests and ensure CodeRabbit.ai approves your changes |
|
@palisadoes ..fixed the failing tests |
|
@CodeRabbit review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
varshith257
merged commit 8169150
into
PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop-postgres #2663 +/- ##
====================================================
- Coverage 90.64% 84.12% -6.52%
====================================================
Files 295 312 +17
Lines 7046 8128 +1082
Branches 1521 1778 +257
====================================================
+ Hits 6387 6838 +451
- Misses 454 1135 +681
+ Partials 205 155 -50 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Added Vitest to OrgPeople Screen
Issue Number: 2562
Fixes #2562
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
OrganizationPeoplecomponent with improved handling of navigation and URL assertions.jesttovitest.OrganizationScreentests to use CSS module class names for better maintainability.