Improve Code Coverage in src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSetting.tsx #3091
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request focuses on enhancing the test coverage and functionality of the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related issues
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yaml 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
Our Pull Request Approval ProcessThanks for contributing! Testing Your CodeRemember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:
Our policies make our code better. ReviewersDo not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
Reviewing Your CodeYour reviewer(s) will have the following roles:
CONTRIBUTING.mdRead our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:
Other
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.spec.tsx (1)
4-4: Remove unused import "within".
The static analysis indicates that "within" is defined but never used. To keep the code clean, consider removing unused imports if they are not necessary.- import { render, screen, waitFor, within } from '@testing-library/react'; + import { render, screen, waitFor } from '@testing-library/react';🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 4-4: 'within' is defined but never used.
(@typescript-eslint/no-unused-vars)
🪛 GitHub Check: Performs linting, formatting, type-checking, checking for different source and target branch
[failure] 4-4:
'within' is defined but never used
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.spec.tsx(2 hunks)src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.tsx(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.tsx
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 eslint
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.spec.tsx
[error] 4-4: 'within' is defined but never used.
(@typescript-eslint/no-unused-vars)
🪛 GitHub Check: Performs linting, formatting, type-checking, checking for different source and target branch
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.spec.tsx
[failure] 4-4:
'within' is defined but never used
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.spec.tsx (1)
149-149: Clarify mismatch in the dropdown item count.
The comment states "Should have 3 items," but the test expects a length of 12, which might be confusing. Verify whether the comment or the expected number of items is accurate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.spec.tsx (3)
4-4: Fix formatting: Add space after commaThere's a minor formatting issue with the spacing after the comma in the import statement.
-import { render, screen, waitFor} from '@testing-library/react'; +import { render, screen, waitFor } from '@testing-library/react';🧰 Tools
🪛 eslint
[error] 4-4: Insert
·(prettier/prettier)
148-149: Fix incorrect comment about dropdown item countThe comment states "Should have 3 items" but the test expects 12 items. This inconsistency could be confusing for other developers.
- expect(dropdownItems).toHaveLength(12); // Should have 3 items: general, actionItemCategories, agendaItemCategories + expect(dropdownItems).toHaveLength(12); // Verify total number of dropdown items
151-178: Consider enhancing test robustnessWhile the test coverage is good, consider these improvements for better test maintainability and reliability:
- Add custom error messages to assertions for better debugging
- Consider adding negative test cases (e.g., handling invalid selections)
- Extract test data into constants for better maintenance
Example improvement:
const TAB_MAPPINGS = { general: 'generalTab', actionItemCategories: 'actionItemCategoriesTab', agendaItemCategories: 'agendaItemCategoriesTab' }; // In the test for (const [itemText, tabId] of Object.entries(TAB_MAPPINGS)) { const item = dropdownItems.find(i => i.textContent?.includes(itemText)); expect(item, `Dropdown item for ${itemText} not found`).toBeDefined(); await userEvent.click(item!); await waitFor(() => { expect( screen.getByTestId(tabId), `Tab content for ${itemText} not rendered` ).toBeInTheDocument(); }); if (itemText !== Object.keys(TAB_MAPPINGS).pop()) { await userEvent.click(dropdownToggle); } }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.spec.tsx(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 eslint
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.spec.tsx
[error] 4-4: Insert ·
(prettier/prettier)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.spec.tsx (1)
133-183: Well-structured test implementation!
The new test case provides comprehensive coverage of the dropdown functionality and tab switching behavior. The implementation follows testing best practices with proper async/await usage and thorough state verification.
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.spec.tsx (2)
151-178: Consider refactoring the test for better maintainabilityThe current implementation uses string includes checks which could be fragile. Consider:
- Using data-testid attributes for more reliable selection
- Creating a mapping of tab names to their expected content testids
Example refactor:
const TAB_CONTENT_MAP = { general: 'generalTab', actionItemCategories: 'actionItemCategoriesTab', agendaItemCategories: 'agendaItemCategoriesTab' }; // In the test for (const item of dropdownItems) { await userEvent.click(item); const tabName = Object.keys(TAB_CONTENT_MAP).find(key => item.textContent?.includes(key) ); if (tabName) { await waitFor(() => { expect(screen.getByTestId(TAB_CONTENT_MAP[tabName])).toBeInTheDocument(); }); } if (item !== dropdownItems[dropdownItems.length - 1]) { await userEvent.click(dropdownToggle); } }
180-183: Consider adding more assertions for dropdown stateThe test verifies the final selected tab, but consider adding assertions for:
- The dropdown being closed after selection
- The correct styling being applied to the selected item
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.spec.tsx(1 hunks)src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.tsx(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.tsx (1)
84-84: LGTM! Removal of istanbul ignore improves coverage
The removal of the istanbul ignore comment allows proper coverage tracking while maintaining the same functionality. This change aligns well with the PR objective of improving code coverage.
|
Please make coderabbit approve your PR |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop-postgres #3091 +/- ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage 23.64% 89.48% +65.83%
=====================================================
Files 301 322 +21
Lines 7676 8452 +776
Branches 1677 1843 +166
=====================================================
+ Hits 1815 7563 +5748
+ Misses 5737 657 -5080
- Partials 124 232 +108 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Please make coderabbit.ai approve your PR |
vivekbisen04
force-pushed
the
Improve-OrgSetting-test-coverage
branch
from
689f7ba to
d57ed92
Compare
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.spec.tsx (1)
146-147:⚠️ Potential issueFix incorrect dropdown items count assertion
The assertion
expect(dropdownItems).toHaveLength(12)appears incorrect as the component only defines 3 settings tabs (general,actionItemCategories,agendaItemCategories). This issue was previously flagged in a review.The high count might be due to
getAllByRole('button')selecting other buttons in the component. Use a more specific selector:-const dropdownItems = screen.getAllByRole('button'); +const dropdownItems = screen.getAllByRole('menuitem'); expect(dropdownItems).toHaveLength(3);
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.spec.tsx (2)
152-168: Refactor repetitive test conditionsThe test conditions can be simplified to reduce code duplication and improve maintainability.
-if (item.textContent?.includes('general')) { - await waitFor(() => { - expect(screen.getByTestId('generalTab')).toBeInTheDocument(); - }); -} else if (item.textContent?.includes('actionItemCategories')) { - await waitFor(() => { - expect( - screen.getByTestId('actionItemCategoriesTab'), - ).toBeInTheDocument(); - }); -} else if (item.textContent?.includes('agendaItemCategories')) { - await waitFor(() => { - expect( - screen.getByTestId('agendaItemCategoriesTab'), - ).toBeInTheDocument(); - }); -} +const tabMapping = { + general: 'generalTab', + actionItemCategories: 'actionItemCategoriesTab', + agendaItemCategories: 'agendaItemCategoriesTab' +}; + +const selectedTab = Object.entries(tabMapping).find(([key]) => + item.textContent?.includes(key) +)?.[1]; + +if (selectedTab) { + await waitFor(() => { + expect(screen.getByTestId(selectedTab)).toBeInTheDocument(); + }); +}
175-177: Improve final assertion readabilityThe final assertion can be made more explicit about what it's verifying.
-expect(dropdownToggle).toHaveTextContent( - screen.getByTestId('agendaItemCategoriesSettings').textContent || '', -); +const expectedText = screen.getByTestId('agendaItemCategoriesSettings').textContent || ''; +expect(dropdownToggle).toHaveTextContent(expectedText, + 'Dropdown toggle should display the text of the last selected item');
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.spec.tsx(1 hunks)src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.tsx(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSettings.tsx (1)
84-84: LGTM! Removal of istanbul ignore improves coverage
The removal of the /* istanbul ignore next */ comment is appropriate as the onClick handler should be covered by tests. This change aligns with the PR objective of improving code coverage.
@palisadoes This test case counts the number of HTML button {dropdown} parse and that should 12 according to test case if I'm not doing this line number 84 in Orgsetting.tsx remain uncoverd. |
|
OK. Please make code rabbit approve your PR |
vivekbisen04
force-pushed
the
Improve-OrgSetting-test-coverage
branch
from
d57ed92 to
f37aee5
Compare
I have implemented the changes suggested by Coderabbit. |
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
|
Make sure coderabbit.ai approves your PR |
vivekbisen04
force-pushed
the
Improve-OrgSetting-test-coverage
branch
from
c5c81b1 to
af68fbb
Compare
disha1202
merged commit 78be925
into
PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Improve Code Coverage in src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSetting.tsx #3034
Issue Number:
Fixes #3034
Did you add tests for your changes?
Yes
Snapshots/Videos:
If relevant, did you update the documentation?
No
Summary
This PR Improve Code Coverage in src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSetting.tsx. Key changes include:
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No
Other information
Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes
Summary by CodeRabbit
Tests
Refactor