refactor:vitest to EventVolunteers/Volunteers #2695
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request focuses on migrating test files for the Volunteers screens from Jest to Vitest. The changes involve updating mocking methods, replacing 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)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/VolunteerViewModal.spec.tsx (1)
Line range hint
91-102: Consider enhancing test coverage with additional scenarios.While the basic rendering tests are good, consider adding tests for:
- Modal interaction (hide callback)
- Volunteer status changes
- Group membership rendering
- Hour display formatting
Example test case:
it('should call hide when closing the modal', async () => { const props = { ...itemProps[0] }; renderVolunteerViewModal(props); // Trigger close action const closeButton = screen.getByRole('button', { name: /close/i }); await userEvent.click(closeButton); expect(props.hide).toHaveBeenCalled(); });src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/Volunteers.spec.tsx (2)
63-76: LGTM! Well-structured mock implementation with proper typing.The mock implementation correctly preserves the actual router functionality while providing consistent test data. The use of
Readonly<Params<string>>adds proper type safety.Consider enhancing the mock comment to be more descriptive:
-/** Mock useParams to provide consistent test data */ +/** Mock useParams to provide consistent orgId and eventId parameters for testing */
Line range hint
1-249: Consider additional test improvements.While the Vitest migration is well-implemented, consider these enhancements:
- Add test coverage for error cases in the modals (view, delete, create)
- Consider using
test.eachfor similar test cases (e.g., modal open/close tests)- Add snapshot tests for the rendered volunteer list
Example of using
test.each:test.each([ ['View', 'viewItemBtn', 'volunteerDetails'], ['Delete', 'deleteItemBtn', 'removeVolunteer'], ['Create', 'addVolunteerBtn', 'addVolunteer'] ])('Open and close Volunteer Modal (%s)', async (type, btnTestId, expectedText) => { renderVolunteers(link1); const btn = type === 'Create' ? await screen.findByTestId(btnTestId) : (await screen.findAllByTestId(btnTestId))[0]; userEvent.click(btn); expect(await screen.findByText(t[expectedText])).toBeInTheDocument(); userEvent.click(await screen.findByTestId('modalCloseBtn')); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/VolunteerCreateModal.spec.tsx(2 hunks)src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/VolunteerDeleteModal.spec.tsx(2 hunks)src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/VolunteerViewModal.spec.tsx(3 hunks)src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/Volunteers.spec.tsx(3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (11)
src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/VolunteerViewModal.spec.tsx (1)
13-13: LGTM! Jest to Vitest migration looks correct.
The changes correctly replace Jest mocks with Vitest equivalents:
- Added proper import for
vifrom 'vitest' - Replaced
jest.fn()withvi.fn()for thehideprop mocks
Also applies to: 28-28, 55-55
src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/VolunteerDeleteModal.spec.tsx (4)
18-18: LGTM: Vitest import added correctly
The import of vi from 'vitest' is properly placed and necessary for the migration.
20-30: LGTM: Mock implementation properly migrated to Vitest
The changes correctly:
- Add clear documentation for the mock implementation
- Replace jest.mock with vi.mock
- Update mock methods to use vi.fn()
48-49: LGTM: Test setup properly updated for Vitest
Mock functions in itemProps correctly updated to use vi.fn().
Line range hint 91-134: Verify test coverage and execution
The test cases cover all scenarios (success, cancellation, error) and properly use the new Vitest mocks. Let's verify the test execution and coverage.
✅ Verification successful
Test cases are properly migrated and follow consistent patterns
The test implementation is correctly using Vitest mocks and follows consistent patterns across both modal components. Key observations:
- All Jest references have been replaced with Vitest (
vi.mock,vi.fn()) - Toast notifications are properly mocked
- Test coverage includes success, error, and cancellation scenarios
- Test patterns are consistent with other similar components (VolunteerCreateModal)
- All assertions use proper async/await patterns with
waitFor
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify test coverage for VolunteerDeleteModal
# Search for any remaining Jest references that might have been missed
rg -i "jest\." "src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/VolunteerDeleteModal"
# Check if there are any other test files in the same directory that might need similar updates
fd -e spec.tsx -e test.tsx . "src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/"
Length of output: 511
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of VolunteerDeleteModal.spec.tsx to verify the test setup and mocks
cat src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/VolunteerDeleteModal.spec.tsx
# Also check VolunteerCreateModal.spec.tsx to compare test patterns
cat src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/VolunteerCreateModal.spec.tsx
Length of output: 8325
src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/VolunteerCreateModal.spec.tsx (4)
25-25: LGTM: Vitest import added correctly
The import of vi from 'vitest' is properly placed and necessary for the migration from Jest to Vitest.
27-37: LGTM: Mock implementation properly migrated to Vitest
The mock implementation is well-documented and correctly migrated from Jest to Vitest. The JSDoc comments provide clear explanation of the mock's purpose.
Let's verify that all toast method usages are covered by the mock:
✅ Verification successful
Mock implementation correctly covers all toast method usages
The verification confirms that the component only uses toast.success and toast.error methods, which are both properly mocked in the test file. The mock implementation perfectly aligns with the actual usage in the component.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify toast method usage coverage
# Search for any toast method calls in the component file to ensure our mock covers all cases
rg "toast\." src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/VolunteerCreateModal.tsx
Length of output: 169
55-55: LGTM: Props mock functions updated to Vitest
The mock functions in itemProps are properly migrated from Jest to Vitest while maintaining the same test behavior.
Let's verify the test coverage for these mocked functions:
Also applies to: 58-58
✅ Verification successful
Mock functions are properly tested with assertions
The test coverage verification shows that both mock functions (hide and refetchVolunteers) are properly tested with corresponding assertions using toHaveBeenCalled(), ensuring the expected behavior is verified.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify test coverage for hide and refetchVolunteers functions
# Search for assertions using these mocked functions
rg "expect\((itemProps\[0\]\.hide|itemProps\[0\]\.refetchVolunteers)" src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/VolunteerCreateModal.spec.tsx
Length of output: 257
Line range hint 1-137: Verify similar changes in related test files
The migration to Vitest is complete and correct for this file. To ensure consistency across the codebase, verify that similar changes have been made in related test files.
Let's check for related test files that might need similar updates:
✅ Verification successful
Migration to Vitest is consistent across related test files
All test files in the Volunteers directory are already using Vitest (vi) instead of Jest, as evidenced by the usage of vi.mock, vi.fn, and vi.clearAllMocks across all spec files. No further migration changes are needed in related test files.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find related test files that might need Vitest migration
# Search for test files in the same directory that might still use Jest
rg "jest\.mock|jest\.fn" src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/
Length of output: 66
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search to find test files in the Volunteers directory
fd ".*\.spec\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx)$" src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/
# Then let's check for any Jest-related imports or usage
rg -l "from ['|\"]@testing-library/jest-dom|from ['|\"]jest" src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/
Length of output: 444
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of other test files to see if they're using Vitest or still on Jest
for file in VolunteerDeleteModal.spec.tsx VolunteerViewModal.spec.tsx Volunteers.spec.tsx; do
echo "=== Checking $file ==="
rg "vi\.|jest\." "src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/$file"
done
Length of output: 1115
src/screens/EventVolunteers/Volunteers/Volunteers.spec.tsx (2)
10-10: LGTM! Necessary imports for Vitest migration.
The added imports for Params type and vi are required for the migration to Vitest and are used appropriately in the code.
Also applies to: 18-18
80-80: LGTM! Proper cleanup with Vitest.
The cleanup method has been correctly updated to use vi.clearAllMocks() in the afterAll hook.
| await waitFor(() => { | ||
| expect(screen.getByTestId('paramsError')).toBeInTheDocument(); | ||
| }); | ||
| expect(window.location.pathname).toBe('/'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using element presence check instead of window.location.
The current approach of checking window.location.pathname might be less reliable as it depends on the global window object. Consider reverting to the original approach of waiting for the element to appear:
-expect(window.location.pathname).toBe('/');
+await waitFor(() => {
+ expect(screen.getByTestId('paramsError')).toBeInTheDocument();
+});This approach is more robust as it:
- Ensures the component has fully rendered
- Follows React Testing Library's best practices of testing what the user sees
- Avoids reliance on global objects
Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Resolved this issue
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@shivasankaran18, glad to hear it's resolved!
If you found this review helpful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on X?
Thank you for using CodeRabbit!
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop-postgres #2695 +/- ##
==================================================
Coverage 86.10% 86.10%
==================================================
Files 295 312 +17
Lines 7259 8134 +875
Branches 1591 1785 +194
==================================================
+ Hits 6250 7004 +754
- Misses 781 959 +178
+ Partials 228 171 -57 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
@CodeRabbit review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
palisadoes
merged commit c843926
into
PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Added Vitest to EventVolunteers/Volunteers screen
Issue Number: 2550
Fixes #2550
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
Bug Fixes
VolunteerCreateModal,VolunteerDeleteModal,VolunteerViewModal, andVolunteerscomponents to ensure compatibility with the Vitest testing framework.react-toastifyanduseParamsto use the new mocking methods.Documentation
useParamsmock in the Volunteers component tests.