Refactor src/components/OrgSettings/ActionItemCategories/* from Jest to Vitest

[abbi4code]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?
This PR migrates the test cases in src/components/OrgSettings/* from Jest to Vitest, ensuring compatibility with Vitest .

✅ Replace Jest-specific functions and mocks with Vitest equivalents
✅ Ensure all tests in src/components/OrgSettings/* from Jest to Vitest pass after migration using npm run test:vitest
✅ Maintain the test coverage for the file as 100% after migration
✅ Upload a video or photo for this specific file coverage is 100% in the PR description

Issue Number:

Fixes #2795

Did you add tests for your changes?
yes

Snapshots/Videos:

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Updated unit tests for various components to transition from Jest to Vitest for mocking functionalities.
  • Enhanced documentation in test files to clarify the scope and coverage of tests.
  • Renamed test functions from test to it for improved readability and consistency.
  • Maintained overall test logic while ensuring the integrity of test environments and scenarios.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This pull request focuses on refactoring unit tests for multiple components within the src/components/OrgSettings directory, specifically transitioning from Jest to Vitest. The changes involve replacing Jest-specific mocking functions with Vitest equivalents, renaming test files from .test.tsx to .spec.tsx, and adding comprehensive documentation comments to explain the test coverage and objectives.

Changes

File	Change Summary
src/components/OrgSettings/ActionItemCategories/CategoryModal.spec.tsx	Migrated from Jest to Vitest, updated mocking functions, added documentation comments
src/components/OrgSettings/ActionItemCategories/OrgActionItemCategories.spec.tsx	Migrated from Jest to Vitest, updated mocking for react-toastify and DateTimePicker, added documentation comments
src/components/OrgSettings/AgendaItemCategories/AgendaCategoryCreateModal.spec.tsx	Migrated from Jest to Vitest, replaced test with it, updated mock functions
src/components/OrgSettings/AgendaItemCategories/AgendaCategoryUpdateModal.spec.tsx	Migrated from Jest to Vitest, replaced test with it
src/components/OrgSettings/AgendaItemCategories/OrganizationAgendaCategory.spec.tsx	Migrated from Jest to Vitest, removed unnecessary imports, updated mocking
src/components/OrgSettings/General/DeleteOrg/DeleteOrg.spec.tsx	Migrated from Jest to Vitest, updated navigation and error handling mocks
src/components/OrgSettings/General/OrgProfileFieldSettings/OrgProfileFieldSettings.spec.tsx	Migrated from Jest to Vitest, updated test function naming
src/components/OrgSettings/General/OrgUpdate/OrgUpdate.spec.tsx	Migrated from Jest to Vitest, updated global alert mocking

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Replace Jest-specific functions with Vitest equivalents [#2795]	✅
Rename test files from .test.* to .spec.* [#2795]	✅
Ensure tests pass using npm run test:vitest [#2795]	❓	Requires actual test run verification
Maintain 100% test coverage [#2795]	❓	Requires coverage report verification

Possibly related issues

• Write Unittests for src/components/OrgSettings/AgendaItemCategories/OrganizationAgendaCategory.tsx #2372: Relates to unit tests for OrganizationAgendaCategory component, which is part of this refactoring effort.

Possibly related PRs

• Refactor: src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions from Jest to Vitest #2619: Migration of Actions component tests to Vitest
• refactored: src/screens/OrgSettings from Jest to Vitest(fixes: #2567) #2625: Transition of OrgSettings component tests to Vitest
• Refactor: src/screens/OrganizationFunds from Jest to Vitest #2685: Refactoring OrganizationFunds component tests
• Refactor : src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal from Jest to Vitest #2489  #2727: Updating AgendaItemsCreateModal tests
• Migrated src/components/AgendaItems/* from Jest to Vitest #2850: Migrating AgendaItems directory tests

Suggested labels

refactor

Suggested reviewers

• palisadoes

Poem

🐰 Hopping through the test terrain,
Jest to Vitest, a coding refrain!
Mocks transformed, functions bright,
Our tests now shine with Vitest's might!
Code coverage climbing, spirits high,
Refactoring tests that never die! 🧪✨

---

📜 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 375ef53.

📒 Files selected for processing (8)

• src/components/OrgSettings/ActionItemCategories/CategoryModal.spec.tsx (3 hunks)
• src/components/OrgSettings/ActionItemCategories/OrgActionItemCategories.spec.tsx (1 hunks)
• src/components/OrgSettings/AgendaItemCategories/AgendaCategoryCreateModal.spec.tsx (3 hunks)
• src/components/OrgSettings/AgendaItemCategories/AgendaCategoryUpdateModal.spec.tsx (4 hunks)
• src/components/OrgSettings/AgendaItemCategories/OrganizationAgendaCategory.spec.tsx (5 hunks)
• src/components/OrgSettings/General/DeleteOrg/DeleteOrg.spec.tsx (8 hunks)
• src/components/OrgSettings/General/OrgProfileFieldSettings/OrgProfileFieldSettings.spec.tsx (8 hunks)
• src/components/OrgSettings/General/OrgUpdate/OrgUpdate.spec.tsx (5 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.

🔇 Additional comments (53)

src/components/OrgSettings/General/OrgUpdate/OrgUpdate.spec.tsx (7)

14-14: Good use of vi import from Vitest.
This replacement is standard practice for migrating from Jest to Vitest.

---

16-25: Excellent documentation block for the test suite.
Including a detailed comment block describing the scope of tests improves readability.

---

60-60: Correctly switched the global alert mock to vi.fn().
Good job updating the mock for the global alert to align with Vitest.

---

62-62: Appropriate replacement of test() with it().
Using it() is consistent with many Vitest setups.

---

110-110: Refactored test name is clear and consistent.
This aligns with Vitest conventions and reads well.

---

183-183: Test name updated in line with Vitest migration.
The switch to it() is suitable.

---

197-197: Smooth transition from Jest to Vitest in this test case.
Maintaining consistent naming conventions here is good.

src/components/OrgSettings/AgendaItemCategories/AgendaCategoryCreateModal.spec.tsx (6)

12-13: Correct Vitest import.
Importing vi from 'vitest' is the right approach for migrating from Jest to Vitest.

---

13-24: Comprehensive documentation block.
These comments clearly detail test scenarios and improve readability.

---

31-33: Mock function migration looks good.
Replacing jest.fn() with vi.fn() aligns with the Vitest migration and maintains the same functionality.

---

37-37: Switch from test to it.
This style is acceptable in Vitest and remains consistent with common patterns.

---

67-67: Consistent naming for test blocks.
Using it improves clarity and is consistent with the chosen BDD approach.

---

110-110: Successful submission test.
Ensuring the function is called once remains aligned with previous behavior.

src/components/OrgSettings/AgendaItemCategories/AgendaCategoryUpdateModal.spec.tsx (7)

13-14: Vitest import.
Importing vi from 'vitest' properly transitions away from Jest.

---

15-26: In-depth documentation.
Providing test coverage details ensures clarity on the file’s scope and purpose.

---

33-35: Mock function conversion to vi.fn().
This maintains existing logic while migrating to Vitest.

---

39-39: Proper coverage for render test.
The usage of it(...) remains consistent with Vitest practices.

---

68-68: Confirming close button functionality.
Transition to it(...) test naming is clear and consistent.

---

94-94: Maintaining form state test.
No issues spotted; the logic and test approach remain valid.

---

138-138: Form submission check.
Verifying the handler call once is consistent with the established test flow.

src/components/OrgSettings/ActionItemCategories/CategoryModal.spec.tsx (6)

17-18: Importing vi from Vitest.
Appropriate switch from Jest to Vitest for mocking.

---

19-28: Documentation block clarity.
Thorough test coverage description is beneficial for understanding test intentions.

---

30-30: Mocking react-toastify with Vitest.
Using vi.mock() ensures compatibility with the new framework.

---

32-33: Success/error mocks.
Retaining the same structure ensures identical behavior under Vitest.

---

52-53: Switch from jest.fn() to vi.fn() for hide function.
This preserves functionality while aligning with the new test library.

---

66-67: Switch from jest.fn() to vi.fn() for refetchCategories.
No issues with the updated mocking approach.

src/components/OrgSettings/AgendaItemCategories/OrganizationAgendaCategory.spec.tsx (10)

23-23: Error mocks import.
Importing the error mock setup remains consistent with the existing test patterns.

---

25-26: Adopting Vitest.
Replacing Jest references fully ensures that all mocks are now Vitest-based.

---

27-40: Extensive test documentation.
Adding detail on test scenarios clarifies the component’s tested behaviors.

---

41-41: Mocking react-toastify.
Implementation matches the Vitest approach.

---

43-44: Toast success/error usage.
Replacing jest.fn() with vi.fn() is correct and consistent.

---

48-54: react-router-dom mocks with Vitest.
This ensures routing is appropriately mocked under Vitest.

---

84-84: Component load test.
No regression noticed; the updated test remains aligned with Vitest syntax.

---

104-104: Error handling test.
Still functions as intended with Vitest. No issues.

---

126-126: Modal open/close test.
Vitest migration preserves the logic.

---

159-159: Creating agenda category.
Code is properly migrated, ensuring identical coverage.

src/components/OrgSettings/General/OrgProfileFieldSettings/OrgProfileFieldSettings.spec.tsx (9)

15-16: Good replacement of jest with vitest.

---

17-26: Clear and concise documentation block added.
These comments effectively describe the scope and scenarios tested.

---

176-176: Test name updated to it(...).
The transition to the it block is consistent with Vitest usage.

---

194-194: Use of it(...) in place of test(...).
Change is valid; ensures uniform naming across the suite.

---

210-210: Jest to Vitest migration is correct here as well.
No functional changes introduced.

---

233-233: Naming consistency maintained.
Switching to it aligns with the rest of the file.

---

247-247: Applicable it(...) usage.
This continues the standardized approach.

---

259-259: Uniform test block naming convention.
Perfect swap-out from Jest to Vitest.

---

277-278: Deprecation of jest.spyOn in favor of vi.spyOn.
This accurately migrates mocking functionalities to Vitest.

src/components/OrgSettings/ActionItemCategories/OrgActionItemCategories.spec.tsx (3)

15-16: Correct import of vi from Vitest.
The mocking strategy is properly updated.

---

17-30: Improved documentation block.
These explanatory comments are helpful and well-structured.

---

32-35: Mocking updates with vi.fn().
Replacing jest with vi is correctly handled here.

Also applies to: 39-44

src/components/OrgSettings/General/DeleteOrg/DeleteOrg.spec.tsx (5)

18-19: Good import of Vitest.
Ensures the new testing framework is used consistently.

---

20-35: Detailed top-level documentation.
This block clearly outlines test coverage and scenarios for DeleteOrg.

---

117-117: Mocking react-router-dom with vi.mock().
Correct approach to replicate Jest’s functionality under Vitest.

Also applies to: 119-126

---

256-256: Use of vi.spyOn(toast, 'error').
This accurately replicates the Jest-based spy functionality in Vitest.

Also applies to: 259-259

---

292-292: Error handling mock is converted properly.
Ensures that toast.error is tested in a Vitest-compatible way.

---

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 87.99%. Comparing base (35cce16) to head (375ef53).
Report is 6 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #2916       +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage             58.52%   87.99%   +29.47%     
=====================================================
  Files                   299      316       +17     
  Lines                  7414     8265      +851     
  Branches               1621     1866      +245     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   4339     7273     +2934     
+ Misses                 2828      780     -2048     
+ Partials                247      212       -35     

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