Added vitest for VolunteerContainer #2693
Conversation
Signed-off-by: NishantSinghhhhh <[email protected]>
WalkthroughThis pull request focuses on refactoring the unit tests for the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
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
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx (2)
27-35: Consider adding TypeScript types to the mocked useParamsThe mock setup is well-implemented using Vitest's async mocking capabilities. However, consider adding type safety to the mocked function.
-const mockedUseParams = vi.fn(); +const mockedUseParams = vi.fn<() => { orgId?: string; eventId?: string }>();
79-96: Enhance toggle screens test with specific assertionsWhile the async handling is improved, the test could be more robust by verifying the state changes after each radio button click.
it('Testing Volunteer Container Screen -> Toggle screens', async () => { mockedUseParams.mockReturnValue({ orgId: 'orgId', eventId: 'eventId' }); renderVolunteerContainer(); const groupRadio = await screen.findByTestId('groupsRadio'); const requestsRadio = await screen.findByTestId('requestsRadio'); const individualRadio = await screen.findByTestId('individualRadio'); expect(groupRadio).toBeInTheDocument(); expect(requestsRadio).toBeInTheDocument(); expect(individualRadio).toBeInTheDocument(); await waitFor(async () => { await userEvent.click(groupRadio); + expect(groupRadio).toBeChecked(); + expect(requestsRadio).not.toBeChecked(); + expect(individualRadio).not.toBeChecked(); + await userEvent.click(requestsRadio); + expect(groupRadio).not.toBeChecked(); + expect(requestsRadio).toBeChecked(); + expect(individualRadio).not.toBeChecked(); + await userEvent.click(individualRadio); + expect(groupRadio).not.toBeChecked(); + expect(requestsRadio).not.toBeChecked(); + expect(individualRadio).toBeChecked(); }); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx (3)
15-16: LGTM: Vitest imports are correctly configured
The necessary testing utilities are properly imported from Vitest, aligning with the PR objective of migrating from Jest.
65-66: LGTM: Proper test cleanup implemented
The beforeEach hook correctly clears all mocks between tests, preventing any interference between test cases.
37-39: Verify the updated route path pattern across the application
The route path has been changed from /event/:orgId/:eventId to /org/:orgId/event/:eventId. This structural change needs verification.
Also applies to: 42-42, 48-48
|
@varshith257 ,@pranshugupta54 can you please review this PR |
|
@NishantSinghhhhh Can you have a look at the coverage report. Although changes seems fine this needs to be in coverage report |
Okay sure , will commit the changes by evening |
Signed-off-by: NishantSinghhhhh <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx (2)
17-24: Enhance documentation with testing strategy details.While the documentation provides a good overview, consider adding details about:
- The testing strategy (unit/integration)
- Key test scenarios covered
- Mocking approach for dependencies
80-97: Enhance toggle screens test with intermediate assertions.While the test correctly verifies the presence of radio buttons and handles clicks, consider adding assertions after each click to verify the state changes:
await waitFor(async () => { await userEvent.click(groupRadio); + expect(groupRadio).toBeChecked(); + expect(requestsRadio).not.toBeChecked(); + expect(individualRadio).not.toBeChecked(); + await userEvent.click(requestsRadio); + expect(groupRadio).not.toBeChecked(); + expect(requestsRadio).toBeChecked(); + expect(individualRadio).not.toBeChecked(); + await userEvent.click(individualRadio); + expect(groupRadio).not.toBeChecked(); + expect(requestsRadio).not.toBeChecked(); + expect(individualRadio).toBeChecked(); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx (3)
28-36: LGTM! Well-structured mock implementation.
The mock setup correctly preserves the actual router functionality while allowing custom useParams behavior. Good practice using async vi.importActual.
66-67: LGTM! Good test isolation practice.
Using vi.clearAllMocks() in beforeEach ensures clean mock state for each test.
38-40: Verify the updated route path structure across the application.
The route path has been updated from /event/:orgId/:eventId to /org/:orgId/event/:eventId. Please ensure this change is consistent with:
- The main router configuration
- Any navigation logic in other components
- URL generation in the application
Also applies to: 43-43, 49-49
✅ Verification successful
The route path structure is consistent with the new format
Based on the verification of App.tsx and test files:
- The main router configuration in App.tsx uses the new path structure
/org/:orgId/event/:eventIdfor event routes - The test file VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx correctly uses the new path format
/org/orgId/event/eventIdin its test setup - No instances of the old path structure
/event/:orgId/:eventIdwere found in the codebase
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for route definitions and navigation code using the old path structure
rg -l "\/event\/:[^\/]+\/:[^\/]+" --type tsx --type ts
# Search for potential useNavigate or Link usages with the old path
rg "navigate\(.*?\/event\/|to=.*?\/event\/" --type tsx --type ts
Length of output: 333
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for route definitions and navigation code using both old and new path structures
rg "(/event/|/org/.+?/event/)" --type tsx --type ts -l
# Search for specific route-related code
rg "(useNavigate|Link).+?(/event/|/org/.+?/event/)" --type tsx --type ts
# Search for router configuration files
fd -e tsx -e ts "router|routes" --exec rg -l "path.*?(/event/|/org/.+?/event/)" {}
Length of output: 274
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for route definitions and navigation code using both old and new path structures
rg -t ts -t typescript -t tsx "(/event/|/org/.+?/event/)"
# Search for specific route-related code
rg -t ts -t typescript -t tsx "(useNavigate|Link).+(event|org)"
# Search for router configuration files
find . -type f \( -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.tsx" \) -exec grep -l "path.*event" {} \;
Length of output: 1084
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check App.tsx for route configuration
cat ./src/App.tsx
# Check specific test files for route patterns
cat ./src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx
cat ./src/screens/OrganizationDashboard/OrganizationDashboard.spec.tsx
Length of output: 24427
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop-postgres #2693 +/- ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage 43.57% 88.39% +44.82%
=====================================================
Files 299 316 +17
Lines 7420 8271 +851
Branches 1623 1812 +189
=====================================================
+ Hits 3233 7311 +4078
+ Misses 3958 742 -3216
+ Partials 229 218 -11 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Signed-off-by: NishantSinghhhhh <[email protected]>
…-admin into VolunteerContainer-vitest
…hh/talawa-admin into VolunteerContainer-vitest
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx (1)
92-96: Separate assertions for each radio button clickThe current implementation wraps multiple clicks in a single
waitFor, which could mask individual failures. Consider testing each click separately.- await waitFor(async () => { - await userEvent.click(groupRadio); - await userEvent.click(requestsRadio); - await userEvent.click(individualRadio); - }); + await userEvent.click(groupRadio); + expect(groupRadio).toBeChecked(); + + await userEvent.click(requestsRadio); + expect(requestsRadio).toBeChecked(); + + await userEvent.click(individualRadio); + expect(individualRadio).toBeChecked();
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx(2 hunks)src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.tsx(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.tsx
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx (2)
27-35: Well-implemented mock using Vitest best practices!
The mock implementation correctly uses vi.importActual to preserve original router functionality while allowing param mocking. This is a clean and maintainable approach.
65-66: Verify if additional setup is needed
While clearing mocks is good practice, the AI summary mentions removed beforeAll and afterAll hooks. Please verify if any critical setup or cleanup code was lost in the migration.
|
@NishantSinghhhhh You haven't addressed my questions |
Signed-off-by: NishantSinghhhhh <[email protected]>
I have added all the changes you requested |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx (1)
Line range hint
77-116: Fix and enhance toggle screens testThe test has several issues that need addressing:
- Duplicate render calls (lines 78-94 and line 98)
- Missing assertions for state changes after radio button clicks
- Inconsistent route paths between tests
Suggested fixes:
- Remove the duplicate render call
- Add assertions for each view state
- Use consistent route paths
it('Testing Volunteer Container Screen -> Toggle screens', async () => { - render( - <MockedProvider addTypename={false} link={link1}> - <MemoryRouter initialEntries={['/event/']}> - <Provider store={store}> - <I18nextProvider i18n={i18n}> - <Routes> - <Route path="/event/" element={<VolunteerContainer />} /> - <Route - path="/" - element={<div data-testid="paramsError"></div>} - /> - </Routes> - </I18nextProvider> - </Provider> - </MemoryRouter> - </MockedProvider>, - ); mockedUseParams.mockReturnValue({ orgId: 'orgId', eventId: 'eventId' }); renderVolunteerContainer(); const groupRadio = await screen.findByTestId('groupsRadio'); const requestsRadio = await screen.findByTestId('requestsRadio'); const individualRadio = await screen.findByTestId('individualRadio'); expect(groupRadio).toBeInTheDocument(); expect(requestsRadio).toBeInTheDocument(); expect(individualRadio).toBeInTheDocument(); await waitFor(async () => { await userEvent.click(groupRadio); + expect(screen.getByTestId('dataTypeTitle')).toHaveTextContent('Groups'); await userEvent.click(requestsRadio); + expect(screen.getByTestId('dataTypeTitle')).toHaveTextContent('Requests'); await userEvent.click(individualRadio); + expect(screen.getByTestId('dataTypeTitle')).toHaveTextContent('Individual'); }); - - await waitFor(() => { - expect(screen.getByTestId('paramsError')).toBeInTheDocument(); - }); });
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx (2)
27-35: Add type safety to useParams mockWhile the mock setup is correct, consider adding type safety to prevent potential issues.
-const mockedUseParams = vi.fn(); +const mockedUseParams = vi.fn<() => { orgId?: string; eventId?: string; }>();
67-74: Enhance undefined params test casesConsider adding more edge cases for URL parameters:
- Invalid orgId/eventId formats
- Partially defined parameters
it.each([ [{}], [{ orgId: undefined, eventId: 'test' }], [{ orgId: 'test', eventId: undefined }], [{ orgId: '', eventId: '' }] ])('should handle invalid params: %s', async (params) => { mockedUseParams.mockReturnValue(params); renderVolunteerContainer(); await waitFor(() => { expect(screen.getByTestId('paramsError')).toBeInTheDocument(); }); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx(3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx (2)
Line range hint 41-52: Fix inconsistent route paths
The route paths in the test setup don't match the actual component routes.
- <MemoryRouter initialEntries={['/event/orgId/eventId']}>
+ <MemoryRouter initialEntries={['/org/orgId/event/eventId']}>
<Provider store={store}>
<LocalizationProvider>
<I18nextProvider i18n={i18n}>
<Routes>
<Route
- path="/event/:orgId/:eventId"
+ path="/org/:orgId/event/:eventId"
element={<VolunteerContainer />}
/>15-16: Verify complete Jest to Vitest migration
The Vitest imports look correct. However, let's ensure all Jest-specific code has been migrated.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can see that the file src/screens/EventVolunteers/VolunteerContainer.spec.tsx is using Vitest imports correctly, and there are no Jest-specific code patterns in this file. The codebase appears to be in a transitional state where some test files are using Jest while others have been migrated to Vitest.
Migration from Jest to Vitest looks correct for this file
The imports from Vitest are properly done and there are no Jest-specific patterns in the file under review. While other files in the codebase still use Jest, this particular file has been correctly migrated to use Vitest.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining Jest-specific code
rg -i "jest\."
rg "test\("
rg "describe\("
rg "expect\("
rg "mock\("
Length of output: 75085
palisadoes
merged commit 1e445f6
into
PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres
PR Title: Refactor VolunteerContainer Component Tests: Migrate from Jest to Vitest
Issue Number:
Fixes: #2548
Did you add tests for your changes?
Yes
Snapshots/Videos:
Screencast.from.2024-12-21.01-57-16.webm
Summary:
This PR refactors the test suite for the VolunteerContainer component by migrating from Jest to Vitest, in alignment with the project's updated testing framework. The following changes were made:
Updated the testing configuration to be compatible with Vitest.
Refactored all test files related to VolunteerContainer to use Vitest's syntax and features.
Consolidated mock definitions to reduce redundancy across test cases for improved maintainability.
Summary by CodeRabbit
VolunteerContainercomponent to enhance test structure and parameter handling.jesttovitest.data-testidattribute to the title span element in theVolunteerContainerfor better testability.