Refactored src/screen/PageNotFound component test from jest to vitest

[rafidoth]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Refactoring

Issue Number:
#2568
Fixes #

Snapshots/Videos:

Summary

• Just refactored from Jest to vitest
• renamed file and added one import line for vitest

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No

Other information

Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Enhanced test coverage for the PageNotFound component with distinct cases for regular and admin users.
  • Transitioned the Campaigns test suite from Jest to Vitest, updating mock implementations and improving documentation.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This pull request focuses on migrating test files from Jest to Vitest for two specific components: PageNotFound and Campaigns. The changes involve updating import statements, replacing Jest-specific mocking functions with Vitest equivalents, and ensuring that the test cases maintain their original logic while leveraging Vitest's testing capabilities. The migration is part of a broader effort to standardize the testing framework across the project.

Changes

File	Change Summary
src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx	Added Vitest import, restructured test cases for user and admin roles
src/screens/UserPortal/Campaigns/Campaigns.spec.tsx	Replaced Jest mocks with Vitest mocks, updated import statements, added JSDoc comments

Possibly related issues

• Refactor: src/screens/PageNotFound from Jest to Vitest #2568: Refactor src/screens/PageNotFound from Jest to Vitest
• Refactor: src/screens/UserPortal/Campaigns from Jest to Vitest #2571: Refactor src/screens/UserPortal/Campaigns from Jest to Vitest

Possibly related PRs

• Refactored: src/screens/UserPortal/Campaigns from Jest to Vitest #2640: Refactors Campaigns component tests from Jest to Vitest
• Refactor: src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/UpcomingEvents from Jest to Vitest #2623: Transitions UpcomingEvents component tests to Vitest
• Migrate src/screens/UserPortal/Donate/Donate.test.tsx Tests from Jest to Vitest #2636: Migrates Donate component tests to Vitest

Suggested labels

refactor

Suggested reviewers

• varshith257
• palisadoes

Poem

🐰 In the realm of tests, a rabbit's delight,
Jest fades away, Vitest shines bright!
Components dance with mocking glee,
From PageNotFound to Campaigns, we're free!
Code evolves, our tests take flight! 🚀

Tip

CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command @coderabbitai generate docstrings to have CodeRabbit automatically generate docstrings for your pull request.

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9723078 and 27ce2c2.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx (1 hunks)
• src/screens/UserPortal/Campaigns/Campaigns.spec.tsx (4 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Learnings (1)

src/screens/UserPortal/Campaigns/Campaigns.spec.tsx (1)

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.

🔇 Additional comments (5)

src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx (1)

11-11: LGTM: Clean migration to Vitest

The import statement has been correctly updated to use Vitest's testing functions. The test structure remains compatible with Vitest without requiring additional changes.

src/screens/UserPortal/Campaigns/Campaigns.spec.tsx (4)

23-23: LGTM: Correct Vitest imports

The import statement correctly includes the necessary Vitest testing functions.

---

30-46: LGTM: Mock implementations properly migrated

The mock implementations have been correctly updated to use Vitest's mocking API:

• vi.mock() replaces jest.mock()
• Mock functions use vi.fn()
• Async module mocking pattern is correctly implemented

---

109-118: LGTM: Router mocking properly migrated

The useParams mock has been correctly implemented using Vitest's mocking API:

• Uses async module mocking pattern
• Preserves original router functionality
• Correctly mocks the useParams function

---

122-122: LGTM: Mock cleanup properly migrated

The mock cleanup operations have been correctly updated:

• vi.clearAllMocks() replaces jest.clearAllMocks()
• vi.unmock() is correctly used to restore router behavior

Also applies to: 156-156

---

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?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[github-actions]

Our Pull Request Approval Process

Thanks for contributing!

Testing Your Code

Remember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:

1. We don't merge PRs with poor code quality.
   1. Follow coding best practices such that CodeRabbit.ai approves your PR.
2. We don't merge PRs with failed tests.
   1. When tests fail, click on the Details link to learn more.
   2. Write sufficient tests for your changes (CodeCov Patch Test). Your testing level must be better than the target threshold of the repository
   3. Tests may fail if you edit sensitive files. Ask to add the ignore-sensitive-files-pr label if the edits are necessary.
3. We cannot merge PRs with conflicting files. These must be fixed.

Our policies make our code better.

Reviewers

Do not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
When your PR has been assigned reviewers contact them to get your code reviewed and approved via:

1. comments in this PR or
2. our slack channel

Reviewing Your Code

Your reviewer(s) will have the following roles:

1. arbitrators of future discussions with other contributors about the validity of your changes
2. point of contact for evaluating the validity of your work
3. person who verifies matching issues by others that should be closed.
4. person who gives general guidance in fixing your tests

CONTRIBUTING.md

Read our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:

1. PRs with issues not assigned to you will be closed by the reviewer
2. Fix the first comment in the PR so that each issue listed automatically closes

Other

1. 🎯 Please be considerate of our volunteers' time. Contacting the person who assigned the reviewers is not advised unless they ask for your input. Do not @ the person who did the assignment otherwise.
2. Read the CONTRIBUTING.md file make

[palisadoes]

1. Please fix the failing tests.
   1. You may have to fix a test that is not related to this PR as in some rare cases we merge faulty test code. If this is the case, fix the test in this PR. Do not open another issue.
2. Please make sure that CodeRabbit.ai approves the PR.
3. Please fix any conflicting files

[palisadoes]

Please fix the conflicting file

[palisadoes]

Please fix the conflicting file which has been recently updated