Added test cases for volunteer-group-view-model #2662
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces a comprehensive suite of unit tests for the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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:
Other🎯 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. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
test/view_model_tests/after_auth_view_model_tests/event_view_model_tests/manage_volunteer_group_view_model_test.dart (6)
14-15: Enhance documentation for test setup requirementsWhile the basic documentation is present, consider adding more details about:
- Test environment prerequisites
- Mock services being registered
- Test data setup
-// This file contains unit tests for the ManageVolunteerGroupViewModel. -// It ensures that all methods and functionalities of the view model are working correctly. +/// This file contains unit tests for the ManageVolunteerGroupViewModel. +/// Test Environment Setup: +/// - Requires mock EventService registration +/// - Uses TestWidgetsFlutterBinding for widget testing +/// - Initializes test locator for dependency injection +/// +/// Coverage: +/// - Tests all public methods and properties +/// - Includes both success and failure scenarios +/// - Verifies error handling and edge cases
32-36: Add tearDown to clean up after each testConsider adding a tearDown block to ensure complete cleanup after each test, preventing any potential state leakage between tests.
setUp(() { model = ManageVolunteerGroupViewModel(); }); + +tearDown(() { + model.dispose(); // If dispose method exists +});
50-53: Enhance getter test coverageThe current test for
isFetchingVolunteersonly verifies the initial state. Consider adding tests for state changes during volunteer fetching operations.test("Test isFetchingVolunteers getter", () async { expect(model.isFetchingVolunteers, isFalse); + // Trigger volunteer fetching + final fetchFuture = model.getCurrentOrgUsersList(); + expect(model.isFetchingVolunteers, isTrue); + await fetchFuture; + expect(model.isFetchingVolunteers, isFalse); });
156-177: Consolidate similar test casesThe two test cases for
removeVolunteerFromGroupwith null responses could be combined into a single parameterized test for better maintainability.-test("Test removeVolunteerFromGroup with null data", () async { - // ... existing test code -}); - -test("Test removeVolunteerFromGroup with null removeEventVolunteer response", - () async { - // ... existing test code -}); +test("Test removeVolunteerFromGroup with null responses", () async { + final testCases = [ + { + 'name': 'null data response', + 'mockData': null, + }, + { + 'name': 'null removeEventVolunteer', + 'mockData': {'removeEventVolunteer': null}, + }, + ]; + + for (final testCase in testCases) { + // Setup + final mockEventService = locator<EventService>(); + final int prevLength = model.volunteers.length; + + when( + mockEventService.removeVolunteerFromGroup({ + 'id': 'volunteer1', + }), + ).thenAnswer( + (_) async => QueryResult( + data: testCase['mockData'], + source: QueryResultSource.network, + options: QueryOptions( + document: gql(EventQueries().removeVolunteerMutation()), + ), + ), + ); + + // Act + await model.removeVolunteerFromGroup("volunteer1"); + + // Assert + expect( + model.volunteers.length, + prevLength, + reason: 'Failed for case: ${testCase['name']}', + ); + } +});Also applies to: 179-202
341-384: Enhance failure test assertionsThe failure test for
updateVolunteerGroupcould be improved by verifying that the model maintains consistency and checking for additional state properties.test('Test updateVolunteerGroup failure', () async { final mockEventService = locator<EventService>(); final group = EventVolunteerGroup( id: "group1", name: "Old Name", volunteersRequired: 0, + volunteers: [], // Add initial volunteers ); + + // Capture initial state + final initialState = { + 'name': group.name, + 'volunteersRequired': group.volunteersRequired, + 'volunteers': List.from(group.volunteers), + }; when( mockEventService.updateVolunteerGroup({ 'id': group.id, 'data': { 'eventId': "1", 'name': "Updated Group", 'volunteersRequired': 20, }, }), ).thenThrow(Exception('Failed to update group')); String log = ""; await runZonedGuarded( () async { await model.updateVolunteerGroup(group, "1", "Updated Group", 20); }, (error, stack) { expect(error, isA<Exception>()); expect(stack, isNotNull); }, zoneSpecification: ZoneSpecification( print: (self, parent, zone, line) { log = line; }, ), ); expect(log, contains('Failed to update group')); - expect(group.name, "Old Name"); - expect(group.volunteersRequired, 0); + // Verify all properties remain unchanged + expect(group.name, initialState['name']); + expect(group.volunteersRequired, initialState['volunteersRequired']); + expect(group.volunteers, initialState['volunteers']); + + // Verify model state is clean + expect(model.isFetchingVolunteers, isFalse); });
Line range hint
1-384: Consider adding missing test scenariosWhile the current test coverage is good, consider adding tests for these scenarios:
- Concurrent operations handling
- Edge cases with empty or invalid input
- Network timeout scenarios
- State recovery after failures
Would you like me to provide example implementations for these test scenarios?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
test/view_model_tests/after_auth_view_model_tests/event_view_model_tests/manage_volunteer_group_view_model_test.dart(7 hunks)
...ter_auth_view_model_tests/event_view_model_tests/manage_volunteer_group_view_model_test.dart
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop-postgres #2662 +/- ##
====================================================
+ Coverage 95.90% 95.94% +0.04%
====================================================
Files 187 187
Lines 9887 9887
====================================================
+ Hits 9482 9486 +4
+ Misses 405 401 -4 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Looks good, make the changes that coderabbitAI has asked |
|
@Dante291 I've reviewed the proposed improvements for the error handling test structure. While the intention to make the tests more robust is appreciated, the suggested changes seem irrelevant in our current context. Specifically, the verification of the initial state, |
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
test/view_model_tests/after_auth_view_model_tests/event_view_model_tests/manage_volunteer_group_view_model_test.dart (3)
Line range hint
38-49: Enhance initialization test coverageWhile the test verifies basic initialization, consider adding assertions for:
- Initial state of isFetchingVolunteers
- Proper initialization of other model properties
- Edge cases with null or invalid input
test("Test initialization", () async { final Event event = Event(id: "1"); final EventVolunteerGroup group = EventVolunteerGroup(id: "group1", volunteers: []); await model.initialize(event, group); expect(model.event.id, "1"); expect(model.volunteers, isEmpty); + expect(model.isFetchingVolunteers, isFalse); + + // Test edge cases + await expectLater( + () => model.initialize(null, group), + throwsA(isA<AssertionError>()), + ); });
158-204: Consider consolidating null handling testsThe two null handling tests for removeVolunteerFromGroup could be combined into a parameterized test to reduce code duplication.
+ final nullCases = [ + {'name': 'null data', 'response': null}, + {'name': 'null removeEventVolunteer', 'response': {'removeEventVolunteer': null}}, + ]; + + for (final testCase in nullCases) { + test('Test removeVolunteerFromGroup with ${testCase['name']}', () async { final mockEventService = locator<EventService>(); final int prevLength = model.volunteers.length; when( mockEventService.removeVolunteerFromGroup({ 'id': 'volunteer1', }), ).thenAnswer( (_) async => QueryResult( - data: null, + data: testCase['response'], source: QueryResultSource.network, options: QueryOptions( document: gql(EventQueries().removeVolunteerMutation()), ), ), ); await model.removeVolunteerFromGroup("volunteer1"); expect(model.volunteers.length, prevLength); - }); + }); + }
342-386: Enhance failure test assertionsThe updateVolunteerGroup failure test could include additional assertions:
test('Test updateVolunteerGroup failure', () async { // ... existing test code ... expect(group.name, "Old Name"); expect(group.volunteersRequired, 0); + // Verify no additional service calls were made + verifyNoMoreInteractions(mockEventService); + // Verify model state remains unchanged + expect(model.isFetchingVolunteers, isFalse); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
test/view_model_tests/after_auth_view_model_tests/event_view_model_tests/manage_volunteer_group_view_model_test.dart(7 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
test/view_model_tests/after_auth_view_model_tests/event_view_model_tests/manage_volunteer_group_view_model_test.dart (3)
19-36: Well-structured test setup!
The setup follows testing best practices:
- Proper test isolation with new model instance per test
- Clear setup and teardown methods
- Good documentation of setup purpose
94-128: Excellent error handling test implementation!
The test follows the suggested structure from previous reviews:
- Verifies initial state
- Checks error message content
- Ensures proper state after error
- Verifies cleanup
Line range hint 1-386: Overall excellent test coverage implementation!
The test suite demonstrates:
- Comprehensive coverage of success and failure cases
- Proper error handling and state verification
- Good isolation and setup practices
- Clear test descriptions
Some minor suggestions for improvement have been provided, but the overall implementation is solid.
Dante291
merged commit 7541b47
into
PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
This PR introduces unit tests for all methods, classes and getters in manage Volunteer group view model
Issue Number:
Fixes #2619
Did you add tests for your changes?
Yes, unit tests were added
Summary
This PR aims to increase the code coverage of the specified file by adding comprehensive unit tests. It ensures that all methods, functions, and widgets are thoroughly tested, improving the overall reliability and maintainability of the codebase. The Pr will resolve issue #2619.
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No, this Pr doesn't introduce a breaking change
Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes
Summary by CodeRabbit