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.

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

Refactored src/components/AddOn/* from jest to Vitest #2917

Merged

Conversation

AceHunterr
Copy link
Contributor

@AceHunterr AceHunterr commented Dec 26, 2024

What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Refactor

Issue Number:

Fixes #2788

Did you add tests for your changes?
No

Snapshots/Videos:
This is the snapshot for the changed for src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnStore/AddOnStore.test.tsx:
AddOnStorage

The rest of the files that were asked to change in the issue were already updated with vitest when I did git pull... and I ran the tests on them and that came out to be successful... I deleted the redundant .test.* files.

If relevant, did you update the documentation?
No

Summary

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No

Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes

    • Removed outdated test files for AddOnEntry and Action components.
  • New Features

    • Transitioned testing framework from Jest to Vitest for the AddOnStore component, enhancing testing capabilities.
  • Documentation

    • Minor formatting adjustments made to the tagTemplate object, including type assertion updates.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 26, 2024

Walkthrough

This pull request involves changes to multiple test files in the src/components/AddOn/ directory, focusing on migrating from Jest to Vitest and removing certain test files. The changes include refactoring the AddOnStore.spec.tsx file to use Vitest mocking syntax, removing the AddOnEntry.test.tsx and Action.test.tsx files, and making a minor type modification in the tagTemplate.ts file by adding a type assertion.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.test.tsx Entire test file removed
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnStore/AddOnStore.spec.tsx Migrated from Jest to Vitest mocking syntax
src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.test.tsx Entire test file removed
src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts Added as any type assertion to schemas array

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Refactor AddOnStore.spec.tsx from Jest to Vitest [#2788]
Rename test files from .test.* to .spec.* [#2788]
Remove AddOnEntry.test.tsx [#2788]
Remove Action.test.tsx [#2788]

Possibly related issues

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

refactor, ignore-sensitive-files-pr

Suggested reviewers

  • pranshugupta54
  • varshith257
  • palisadoes

Poem

🐰 Hopping through tests with Vitest's might,
Farewell Jest, we bid you goodnight!
Components dance, mocks take flight,
Refactoring code with rabbit delight!
Our tests now run with vigor so bright! 🧪✨


📜 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 c2e760c.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)
  • src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.test.tsx (0 hunks)
  • src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnStore/AddOnStore.spec.tsx (5 hunks)
  • src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.test.tsx (0 hunks)
  • src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts (1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (2)
  • src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.test.tsx
  • src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.test.tsx
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
  • src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts
🧰 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 (4)
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnStore/AddOnStore.spec.tsx (4)

22-22: Good import switch to Vitest
The import from vitest looks correct and aligns with the refactoring objective.


Line range hint 30-76: Mocking with Vitest
Usage of vi.mock and vi.fn here is correctly adapted from Jest to Vitest. The approach accurately mirrors the original test logic.


100-104: Repeated mock block
Mocking Plugin.helper again in this block is consistent with the Vitest changes. No issues found.


170-176: Mocking react-router-dom with Vitest
Using vi.importActual and overriding useParams is a correct approach for partial mocking in Vitest. This maintains the same functionality as before.


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.

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

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 26, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.11%. Comparing base (35cce16) to head (c2e760c).
Report is 19 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #2917       +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage             58.52%   88.11%   +29.59%     
=====================================================
  Files                   299      316       +17     
  Lines                  7414     8265      +851     
  Branches               1621     1810      +189     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   4339     7283     +2944     
+ Misses                 2828      769     -2059     
+ Partials                247      213       -34     

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

Copy link
Contributor

@palisadoes palisadoes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why were these files deleted

  1. src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.test.tsx
  2. src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.test.tsx

Why was this file edited? It is out of scope

  1. src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts

You didn't fix all the files in the original issue

@AceHunterr
Copy link
Contributor Author

I deleted

src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.test.tsx

src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.test.tsx

These files because in the issue thread I was told that I can delete them for good.

Secondly regarding rest of the files mentioned in the issue... those were already updated by someone else written in vitest.

@palisadoes
Copy link
Contributor

I deleted

src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.test.tsx

src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.test.tsx

These files because in the issue thread I was told that I can delete them for good.

Secondly regarding rest of the files mentioned in the issue... those were already updated by someone else written in vitest.

Thanks,

Why weren't the deleted files replaced with .spec. files?

@AceHunterr
Copy link
Contributor Author

I deleted
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.test.tsx
src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.test.tsx
These files because in the issue thread I was told that I can delete them for good.
Secondly regarding rest of the files mentioned in the issue... those were already updated by someone else written in vitest.

Thanks,

Why weren't the deleted files replaced with .spec. files?

They were they were... There were actually 5 file changes requested in the issue... out of which 4 were already converted from jest into vitest ....

and for 2 src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnRegister/AddOnRegister.test.tsx and src/components/AddOn/support/components/MainContent/MainContent.test.tsx were already having the .spec.* only...

for the rest 2 there were both the .test.* and .spec.* file.... so I asked in the issue comment and therefore I deleted the .test.* file..

for the current scenario we have the .spec.* vitest files for all the 5 files :

img1
img2

@palisadoes palisadoes self-requested a review December 26, 2024 15:13
@palisadoes palisadoes merged commit 89aebba into PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres Dec 26, 2024
13 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants