-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 813
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
base: develop-postgres
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Improved Code Coverage of UserListCard.tsx #3230
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request focuses on improving code coverage and test quality for the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Suggested labels
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yaml 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
🔇 Additional comments (7)
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
|
There was a problem hiding this 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.
There was a problem hiding this 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
📒 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
@Sriijannn Please fix the failing tests and coderabbit comments. |
There was a problem hiding this 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
andreact-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:
- Focusing this test specifically on translation aspects
- 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
📒 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.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
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. |
Hello, I feel I've done all CodeRabbit Changes as well, could you please confirm what needs to be corrected? |
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
There was a problem hiding this 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
📒 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
andreact-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.
There was a problem hiding this 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
📒 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.
Hello, I have complied with all the requirements of coderabbit and the failing test cases, please confirm |
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
Hey is everything good? |
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)
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
Bug Fixes