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

Improved Code Coverage of UserListCard.tsx #3230

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: develop-postgres
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Sriijannn
Copy link

@Sriijannn Sriijannn commented Jan 9, 2025

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Improved Code Coverage.

Issue Number:

Fixes #3063

Did you add tests for your changes?

Yes

Snapshots/Videos:

[

Screen.Recording.2025-01-09.at.11.40.02.PM.mov

](url)

Screenshot 2025-01-09 at 1 15 00 AM

If relevant, did you update the documentation?

No

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

No

Other information

Have you read the contributing guide?

Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests

    • Enhanced test suite for UserListCard component
    • Added new test cases for success and error scenarios
    • Improved mock implementations for toast notifications and routing
    • Updated test case structure for better consistency and coverage
    • Refined logic for clicking the "Add Admin" button and verifying button presence
  • Bug Fixes

    • Removed coverage ignore comments in error handling logic, ensuring both success and error paths are covered

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 9, 2025

Walkthrough

The pull request focuses on improving code coverage and test quality for the UserListCard component. The changes involve updating the test suite (UserListCard.spec.tsx) with more comprehensive test cases, including better error handling and toast notification testing. In the component file (UserListCard.tsx), the changes remove Istanbul ignore comments, allowing full code coverage reporting for previously excluded code paths.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx - Updated import statements
- Added mock implementations for toast and router
- Replaced it with test
- Added new test cases for success and error scenarios
- Improved button click and rendering tests
src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.tsx - Removed /* istanbul ignore next */ comments
- No functional changes to error handling logic

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Review file for uncovered code sections
Create/update test cases for 100% coverage
Remove Istanbul ignore statements

Suggested labels

refactor

Poem

🐰 In the realm of code, a rabbit's delight,
Test coverage soars to a new height!
No more ignored lines, no more hidden shade,
With every test case, our confidence is made! 🧪
Coverage complete, our component now sings! 🎉


📜 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 ea7851d and f1c748d.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx (4 hunks)
  • src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.tsx (0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
  • src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.tsx
🔇 Additional comments (7)
src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx (7)

14-20: Well-structured test constants!

Good job extracting magic values into named constants. This improves maintainability and makes the tests more readable.


21-37: Clean mock implementations!

The mock implementations for toast and react-router-dom are well-structured. Good practice preserving the actual router functionality while only mocking the necessary parts.


57-65: Good error handling setup!

Excellent addition of error scenarios in the test mocks. This ensures both success and failure paths are properly tested.


71-71: Remove unused alert mock

The alert mock in the test setup is not being used in any test cases.


Line range hint 84-114: Well-structured test cases with proper async handling!

The test cases are well-organized with:

  • Clear test descriptions
  • Proper async/await usage
  • Consistent timeout handling with waitFor
  • Good coverage of both success and error scenarios

Also applies to: 117-141


143-162: Good UI testing practices!

The button rendering test follows accessibility best practices by using role-based queries and checking both presence and styling.


164-189: Comprehensive integration test!

Good coverage of translations and URL parameters, ensuring the component works correctly in the context of the application.


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

github-actions bot commented Jan 9, 2025

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

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Congratulations on making your first PR! 🎊 If you haven't already, check out our Contributing Guidelines and PR Reporting Guidelines to ensure that you are following our guidelines for contributing and creating PR.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 1

🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx (1)

Line range hint 84-106: Remove duplicate test case.

The test case "Should show success toast and reload page after successful mutation" (lines 84-106) is duplicated by "Should display success toast and reload page after successful mutation" (lines 174-203). The second implementation is better as it uses waitFor instead of arbitrary timeouts.

Remove the first test case and keep the second one.

Also applies to: 174-203

🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx (3)

15-31: Consider improving mock type safety and maintainability.

The mock implementations could be enhanced:

 vi.mock('react-toastify', () => ({
   toast: {
-    success: vi.fn(),
-    error: vi.fn(),
+    success: vi.fn<(message: string) => void>(),
+    error: vi.fn<(message: string) => void>(),
   },
 }));

+// Extract mock values to constants for better maintainability
+const MOCK_ORG_ID = '554';
+
 vi.mock('react-router-dom', async () => {
   const actual = await vi.importActual('react-router-dom');
   return {
     ...actual,
     useParams: () => ({
-      orgId: '554',
+      orgId: MOCK_ORG_ID,
     }),
   };
 });

67-77: Simplify window.location.reload mock.

The beforeEach block contains redundant window.location.reload mocks. One implementation is sufficient:

-    vi.spyOn(window, 'location', 'get').mockReturnValue({
-      ...window.location,
-      reload: vi.fn(),
-    });
     Object.defineProperty(window, 'location', {
       writable: true,
       value: {
         ...window.location,
-        reload: vi.fn(), // Mock the reload function
+        reload: vi.fn(),
       },
     });

Line range hint 64-203: Improve test organization with nested describe blocks.

Consider organizing tests into logical groups using nested describe blocks for better readability and maintenance:

 describe('Testing User List Card', () => {
   beforeEach(() => {
     // ... setup ...
   });

   afterEach(() => {
     // ... cleanup ...
   });

+  describe('Mutation Handling', () => {
     test('Should display success toast and reload page after successful mutation', async () => {
       // ... test ...
     });

     test('Should show error toast when mutation fails', async () => {
       // ... test ...
     });
+  });

+  describe('UI Elements', () => {
     test('Should render button with correct styling', () => {
       // ... test ...
     });

     test('Should handle translations and URL parameters correctly', async () => {
       // ... test ...
     });
+  });
 });
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ea7851d and f69877f.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx (4 hunks)
  • src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.tsx (0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
  • src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.tsx
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
  • GitHub Check: Test Application

src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Cioppolo14
Copy link
Contributor

@Sriijannn Please fix the failing tests and coderabbit comments.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx (4)

15-30: LGTM! Clean mock setup with proper type coverage.

The mock implementations for both react-toastify and react-router-dom are well structured. The router mock particularly follows best practices by preserving the actual implementation while only overriding the necessary parts.

Consider adding TypeScript types to the mock implementations for better type safety:

vi.mock('react-toastify', () => ({
  toast: {
-    success: vi.fn(),
-    error: vi.fn(),
+    success: vi.fn() as jest.Mock<void, [message: string]>,
+    error: vi.fn() as jest.Mock<void, [message: string]>,
  },
}));

61-76: Consider a more complete window.location mock.

While the current mock works, consider creating a more complete window.location mock to prevent potential issues if other location properties are accessed in future tests.

Object.defineProperty(window, 'location', {
  value: {
    reload: mockReload,
+    href: 'http://localhost',
+    pathname: '/',
+    search: '',
+    hash: '',
  },
  writable: true,
});

Line range hint 109-129: Enhance error test with specific message assertion.

Consider verifying the specific error message to ensure proper error handling.

await waitFor(() => {
-  expect(toast.error).toHaveBeenCalled();
+  expect(toast.error).toHaveBeenCalledWith('An error occurred');
});

Line range hint 153-175: Consider consolidating duplicate test scenarios.

This test has significant overlap with the first success case test. Consider either:

  1. Focusing this test specifically on translation aspects
  2. Merging the common assertions into the first test

Example of focusing on translations:

test('Should handle translations correctly', async () => {
  const props = {
    id: '456',
  };

  const { rerender } = render(
    <MockedProvider addTypename={false} mocks={MOCKS}>
      <BrowserRouter>
        <I18nextProvider i18n={i18nForTest}>
          <UserListCard key={123} {...props} />
        </I18nextProvider>
      </BrowserRouter>
    </MockedProvider>,
  );

  // Test default language
  expect(screen.getByText(/Add Admin/i)).toBeInTheDocument();

  // Change language
  await i18nForTest.changeLanguage('es');
  rerender(
    <MockedProvider addTypename={false} mocks={MOCKS}>
      <BrowserRouter>
        <I18nextProvider i18n={i18nForTest}>
          <UserListCard key={123} {...props} />
        </I18nextProvider>
      </BrowserRouter>
    </MockedProvider>,
  );

  // Test translated text
  expect(screen.getByText(/Agregar Admin/i)).toBeInTheDocument();
});
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f69877f and e83c5cc.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx (4 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
  • GitHub Check: Test Application
  • GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (javascript)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx (2)

Line range hint 31-58: LGTM! Comprehensive test data covering both success and error paths.

The test data setup is well-structured with consistent variables across both success and error scenarios, which is crucial for reliable testing.


78-106: LGTM! Well-structured async test with proper waitFor usage.

The test properly handles asynchronous operations and follows the previous review suggestion about using waitFor instead of setTimeout.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 10, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.20%. Comparing base (0cede94) to head (e83c5cc).
Report is 150 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #3230       +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage             46.06%   90.20%   +44.14%     
=====================================================
  Files                   299      330       +31     
  Lines                  7420     8488     +1068     
  Branches               1623     1933      +310     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   3418     7657     +4239     
+ Misses                 3767      600     -3167     
+ Partials                235      231        -4     

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

@Sriijannn
Copy link
Author

Hello, I feel I've done all CodeRabbit Changes as well, could you please confirm what needs to be corrected?

@Sriijannn
Copy link
Author

@coderabbitai full review

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 10, 2025

✅ Actions performed

Full review triggered.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx (2)

Line range hint 31-58: Consider extracting test constants.

The test data is well-structured, but consider extracting commonly used values into named constants for better maintainability:

+const TEST_USER_ID = '456';
+const TEST_ORG_ID = '554';
+
 const MOCKS = [
   {
     request: {
       query: ADD_ADMIN_MUTATION,
-      variables: { userid: '456', orgid: '554' },
+      variables: { userid: TEST_USER_ID, orgid: TEST_ORG_ID },
     },
     // ...
   },
 ];

101-106: Consider reducing the timeout value.

The 3000ms timeout for checking window.reload might be excessive. Since this is a synchronous operation, a shorter timeout should suffice:

 await waitFor(
   () => {
     expect(mockReload).toHaveBeenCalled();
   },
-  { timeout: 3000 },
+  { timeout: 1000 },
 );
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ea7851d and e83c5cc.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx (4 hunks)
  • src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.tsx (0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
  • src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.tsx
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx (3)

15-30: Well-structured mock implementations!

The mock setup for both react-toastify and react-router-dom is comprehensive and follows best practices. The toast mock correctly handles both success and error cases, and the router mock properly provides the required orgId parameter.


61-76: Good test setup with proper cleanup!

The test suite setup follows best practices with:

  • Proper mock initialization in beforeEach
  • Clean mock cleanup in afterEach
  • Well-implemented window.location.reload mock

Line range hint 78-175: Excellent test coverage with proper async handling!

The test cases are well-structured and comprehensive, covering:

  • Success scenario with toast and page reload
  • Error handling with error toast
  • UI rendering and styling
  • Translations and URL parameter handling

Good job using waitFor instead of arbitrary timeouts, which makes the tests more reliable.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx (2)

21-37: Consider enhancing mock cleanup.

While the mocks are well-structured, consider adding explicit cleanup in the afterEach block for the router mock to prevent potential test interference:

 afterEach(() => {
   vi.clearAllMocks();
+  vi.restoreAllMocks();
 });

84-84: Enhance test descriptions for clarity.

Consider making the test descriptions more specific about the scenarios being tested:

-  test('Should show success toast and reload page after successful mutation', async () => {
+  test('Should show success toast and reload page when user is successfully added as admin', async () => {

-  test('Should show error toast when mutation fails', async () => {
+  test('Should show error toast when adding user as admin fails', async () => {

-  test('Should render button with correct styling', () => {
+  test('Should render "Add Admin" button with memberfontcreatedbtn class', () => {

-  test('Should handle translations and URL parameters correctly', async () => {
+  test('Should use correct orgId from URL params when adding admin', async () => {

Also applies to: 117-117, 143-143, 164-164

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e83c5cc and f1c748d.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx (4 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
  • GitHub Check: Test Application
  • GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (javascript)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/components/UserListCard/UserListCard.spec.tsx (3)

14-20: Well-structured test constants!

Good practice using named constants instead of magic strings/numbers. This improves maintainability and makes the tests more readable.


102-114: Excellent implementation of waitFor!

The timeout handling has been standardized using waitFor with consistent timeout values, addressing the previous review feedback.


Line range hint 1-189: Great improvements to test coverage and quality!

The test suite has been significantly enhanced with:

  • Comprehensive test scenarios
  • Consistent error handling
  • Standardized timeout management
  • Well-structured mocks and constants

These changes will help maintain code quality and catch potential issues early.

@Sriijannn
Copy link
Author

Hello, I have complied with all the requirements of coderabbit and the failing test cases, please confirm

@palisadoes
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai full review

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 10, 2025

✅ Actions performed

Full review triggered.

@Sriijannn
Copy link
Author

Hey is everything good?

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.

3 participants