Refactored src/components/Venues/VenueModal.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest

[aadhil2k4]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Refactoring and Testing

Issue Number:

Fixes #2827

Did you add tests for your changes?

Yes

Snapshots/Videos:

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

No

Have you read the contributing guide?

Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Updated the testing framework for the VenueModal component to use Vitest instead of Jest.
  • Adjusted mock implementations to ensure compatibility with the new framework.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This pull request focuses on refactoring the VenueModal.spec.tsx test file from Jest to Vitest. The changes involve replacing Jest-specific mocking functions with their Vitest equivalents, such as substituting jest.mock with vi.mock and jest.requireActual with vi.importActual. The modifications also include updating function mocks to use vi.fn() instead of jest.fn(), ensuring compatibility with the Vitest testing framework while maintaining the original test logic.

Changes

File	Change Summary
src/components/Venues/VenueModal.spec.tsx	Migrated from Jest to Vitest testing framework, replacing mocking functions and maintaining test structure

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Replace Jest-specific functions with Vitest equivalents [#2827]	✅
Rename test file to .spec.* suffix [#2827]	✅
Ensure tests pass using npm run test:vitest [#2827]	❓	Requires actual test run verification
Maintain 100% test coverage [#2827]	❓	Requires coverage report verification

Possibly related issues

• Refactor : src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsUpdateModal.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2491: Similar Vitest migration for AgendaItemsUpdateModal.test.tsx
• Refactor : src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsPreviewModal.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2490: Similar Vitest migration for AgendaItemsPreviewModal.test.tsx
• Refactor : src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2489: Similar Vitest migration for AgendaItemsCreateModal.test.tsx
• Refactor: src/screens/OrganizationVenues from Jest to Vitest #2563: Vitest migration for OrganizationVenues tests

Possibly related PRs

• Refactor:src/screens/UserPortal/Events from Jest to Vitest  #2639: Transitioning Events component tests to Vitest
• Refactor: src/screens/OrganizationVenues from Jest to Vitest #2665: Updating OrganizationVenues tests to Vitest
• Refactor : src/components/CheckIn/CheckInWrapper.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2709: Refactoring CheckInWrapper tests to Vitest

Suggested reviewers

• palisadoes

Poem

🐰 Hopping through code with glee,
Jest to Vitest, a testing spree!
Mocks transformed, functions anew,
Our test suite sings a framework true!
Rabbit's testing dance is done ✨

---

📜 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 9772f7d and 7631a65.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/components/Venues/VenueModal.spec.tsx (5 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (6)

src/components/Venues/VenueModal.spec.tsx (6)

21-22: Importing Vitest utilities and typed router-dom references looks correct.
These lines correctly import vi from 'vitest' and type definitions for react-router-dom. This ensures consistency in type safety when mocking.

---

70-78: Mocking react-router-dom using Vitest's vi.mock is properly done.
Replacing jest.mock with vi.mock aligns with the Vitest guidelines while preserving the intended behavior of mocking useParams. The usage of vi.importActual ensures partial mocking.

---

88-92: Mocking react-toastify successfully transitions from Jest to Vitest.
Using vi.fn() for the toast methods (success, warning, error) maintains the test coverage for toast calls without changing runtime logic.

---

99-102: Substituting jest.fn() with vi.fn() for callback props is correct.
Refactoring from Jest to Vitest for the onHide and refetchVenues props is consistent with the framework migration.

---

Line range hint 107-116: Continuing vi.fn() usage for additional props ensures uniform mocking.
Applying the same pattern for the edit mode props maintains consistency throughout the test suite.

---

139-139: Mocking global.alert with vi.fn() preserves the expected side effects.
By intercepting the global alert, the test can confidently verify alert calls without polluting the console or environment.

---

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 88.22%. Comparing base (9772f7d) to head (7631a65).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #2932       +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage             47.49%   88.22%   +40.73%     
=====================================================
  Files                   299      316       +17     
  Lines                  7414     8265      +851     
  Branches               1621     1810      +189     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   3521     7292     +3771     
+ Misses                 3653      759     -2894     
+ Partials                240      214       -26     

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