Refactored src/components/AgendaCategory/AgendaCategoryContainer.test…

[AceHunterr]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Refactoring

Issue Number:
Fixes #2791

Did you add tests for your changes?
No

Snapshots/Videos:
Here is the snapshot for the passed test for the file

If relevant, did you update the documentation?
No

Summary

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No

Have you read the contributing guide?
No

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes

  • Updated mocking methods in tests to improve compatibility with the new testing framework.

• New Features

  • Enhanced type assertions in the tag template for better type checking.

• Documentation

  • Updated comments and structure in test files to reflect changes in the mocking framework.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request focuses on migrating the AgendaCategoryContainer test suite from Jest to Vitest. The changes involve updating the testing framework-specific functions and mocks in multiple files, primarily AgendaCategoryContainer.spec.tsx and AgendaCategoryContainerProps.ts. The modifications include replacing Jest-specific mocking methods with Vitest equivalents, renaming the test file from .test.tsx to .spec.tsx, and updating import statements and mock implementations accordingly.

Changes

File	Change Summary
src/components/AgendaCategory/AgendaCategoryContainer.spec.tsx	Migrated from Jest to Vitest, replaced jest.mock() with vi.mock(), updated mock implementations
src/components/AgendaCategory/AgendaCategoryContainerProps.ts	Replaced jest.fn() with vi.fn(), added Vitest import
src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts	Minor formatting change, added type assertion as any to schemas array

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Replace Jest-specific functions with Vitest equivalents [#2791]	✅
Rename test file from .test.* to .spec.* [#2791]	✅
Maintain 100% test coverage [#2791]	❓	Coverage verification not visible in the diff

Possibly related issues

• Refactor : src/components/AgendaCategory/AgendaCategoryContainer.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2487: Refactoring AgendaCategoryContainer.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest (very similar to the current PR)
• Refactor : src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsUpdateModal.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2491: Refactoring AgendaItemsUpdateModal.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest
• Refactor : src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsContainer.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2488: Refactoring AgendaItemsContainer.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest

Possibly related PRs

• Refactor:src/screens/UserPortal/Events from Jest to Vitest  #2639: Transitioning Events component tests from Jest to Vitest
• Refactor : src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal from Jest to Vitest #2489  #2727: Refactoring AgendaItemsCreateModal tests from Jest to Vitest
• Migrated src/components/AgendaItems/* from Jest to Vitest #2850: Migrating multiple AgendaItems component tests from Jest to Vitest

Suggested reviewers

• palisadoes

Poem

🐰 Hopping through the code with glee,
Jest to Vitest, a testing spree!
Mocks transformed, tests now bright,
Our rabbit's refactoring takes flight!
Vitest magic, coverage complete,
A testing journey, oh so sweet! 🧪

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. We would love to hear your feedback on Discord.

---

📜 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 35cce16 and 13f25a7.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• src/components/AgendaCategory/AgendaCategoryContainer.spec.tsx (2 hunks)
• src/components/AgendaCategory/AgendaCategoryContainerProps.ts (2 hunks)
• src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts (1 hunks)

✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)

• src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts

🧰 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/components/AgendaCategory/AgendaCategoryContainer.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 (8)

src/components/AgendaCategory/AgendaCategoryContainerProps.ts (3)

2-2: Migration to Vitest import appears correct.
No issues identified with this import change.

---

28-28: Mock function refactor from jest.fn() to vi.fn()
Looks consistent with the rest of the Vitest migration.

---

34-34: Mock function refactor from jest.fn() to vi.fn()
Changes align with Vitest-based mocking.

src/components/AgendaCategory/AgendaCategoryContainer.spec.tsx (5)

11-11: Commenting out Jest mocks
Clean removal of legacy row. This aligns with the migration plan.

---

13-13: Disabling Jest location mock
No issues with this simple deprecation of Jest mocks.

---

28-28: Importing vi from Vitest
This import statement suitably replaces Jest references.

---

33-33: Refactor from jest.mock to vi.mock
This completes the shift to Vitest mocking.

---

35-36: Mocked success and error calls updated with vi.fn()
These updates follow the Vitest convention correctly.

---

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.13%. Comparing base (aa9c903) to head (403cf1a).
Report is 6 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #2912       +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage             47.74%   88.13%   +40.38%     
=====================================================
  Files                   299      316       +17     
  Lines                  7414     8265      +851     
  Branches               1621     1810      +189     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   3540     7284     +3744     
+ Misses                 3638      770     -2868     
+ Partials                236      211       -25     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[palisadoes]

Why was src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts added to the PR? It is not in scope.

[AceHunterr]

I made changes in the file

src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts

Because when I made the usual required changes and pushed the changes... pre commit hook was showing some error in this file and then I looked it up and it showed Type Error in the name field... I looked up for a solution and found this and then tested it by running the server and tests and there were no discrepancy so I pushed it to avoid the pre commit error. Shall I try any other way around?

[palisadoes]

I made changes in the file

src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts

Because when I made the usual required changes and pushed the changes... pre commit hook was showing some error in this file and then I looked it up and it showed Type Error in the name field... I looked up for a solution and found this and then tested it by running the server and tests and there were no discrepancy so I pushed it to avoid the pre commit error. Shall I try any other way around?

Please update your local branch with the latest upstream. This should have been fixed

[AceHunterr]

I made changes in the file
src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts
Because when I made the usual required changes and pushed the changes... pre commit hook was showing some error in this file and then I looked it up and it showed Type Error in the name field... I looked up for a solution and found this and then tested it by running the server and tests and there were no discrepancy so I pushed it to avoid the pre commit error. Shall I try any other way around?

Please update your local branch with the latest upstream. This should have been fixed

I fixed that issue and opened another PR #2938