Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Refactor : src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal from Jest to Vitest #2489 #2721

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Refactor : src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal from Jest to Vitest #2489 #2721

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

Ramneet04
Copy link

@Ramneet04 Ramneet04 commented Dec 22, 2024 •
edited by coderabbitai bot
Loading

Refactored src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.test.tsx to src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx

Issue: #2489 : #2489

Changes Implemented:

Refactored the testing framework from Jest to Vitest in AgendaItemsCreateModal.test.tsx.
Updated import statements, mocking methods, and assertions to align with Vitest conventions.
Verified compatibility with the existing codebase using Vitest.

TestSSworking

Other information
I have read the previous refactor PR and tried to keep things as uniform as possible.
Please suggest any other changes if required.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Transitioned testing framework from Jest to Vitest.
    • Updated mock functions and mocking syntax to align with Vitest.
    • Enhanced testing capabilities with the addition of relevant import statements.

@coderabbitai coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 22, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Walkthrough

This pull request focuses on migrating the test file AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx from Jest to Vitest. The changes involve updating mock function declarations, replacing Jest-specific mocking syntax with Vitest equivalents, and adding the @testing-library/jest-dom import. The core testing logic and structure remain consistent, ensuring that the component's behavior is still thoroughly tested with the new testing framework.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx - Replaced jest.fn() with vi.fn() for mock functions
- Updated mocking syntax from jest.mock to vi.mock
- Added import for @testing-library/jest-dom
- Maintained original test structure and logic

Possibly related issues

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

refactor

Suggested reviewers

  • varshith257
  • palisadoes

Poem

🐰 A testing tale of transformation neat,
From Jest to Vitest, our code's new beat
Mock functions dance with vi's delight
Specs shimmer with testing might
Refactoring rabbits hop with glee! 🧪

📜 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 ec91a82 and 49ef626.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx (3 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
📓 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.
🪛 GitHub Check: Performs linting, formatting, type-checking, checking for different source and target branch
src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx

[failure] 76-76:
Cannot find namespace 'vi'.

🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx (4)

15-16: LGTM: Proper Vitest imports added

The necessary imports for Vitest and testing-library jest-dom have been correctly added.

33-35: LGTM: Mock functions properly migrated to Vitest

The mock functions have been correctly converted from jest.fn() to vi.fn().

69-75: LGTM: Module mocks correctly migrated to Vitest

The module mocks for 'react-toastify' and 'utils/convertToBase64' have been properly converted to use Vitest's mocking syntax.

76-78: LGTM: Proper type declaration for mocked function

The type declaration for the mocked convertToBase64 function is correctly implemented using Vitest's typing.

🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Performs linting, formatting, type-checking, checking for different source and target branch

[failure] 76-76:
Cannot find namespace 'vi'.

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
🪧 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 GitHub Actions
Copy link

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
Copy link
Contributor

Please submit your PRs against our develop-postgres branch. This is a temporary requirement as we prepare to migrate our API backend to Postgres.

Also if applicable, make sure your branch name is different from develop-postgres when resubmitting.

Closing.

@palisadoes palisadoes closed this Dec 22, 2024
@Ramneet04
Copy link
Author

Ramneet04 commented Dec 22, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Ah okay is everything else is correct like the code changes?? I'll submit it again.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@coderabbitai coderabbitai[bot] coderabbitai[bot] approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@Ramneet04 @palisadoes