test : added tests for lib/view_model/widgets_view_models/progress_dialog_view_model.dart
#2670
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request focuses on enhancing the unit tests for the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yaml 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
test/view_model_tests/progress_dialog_view_model_test.dart (2)
21-27: Consider moving model instantiation inside the test scope.While the test logic is correct, the model is currently instantiated outside the test scope. For better test isolation, consider moving the model instantiation inside each test case.
- final model = ProgressDialogViewModel(); test( 'When called and connectivity is present, connectivityPresent must be set to true', () async { + final model = ProgressDialogViewModel(); // Simulate online state AppConnectivity.isOnline = true;
29-40: Consider maintaining consistent spacing in test cases.The test logic is correct, but there are extra blank lines that make the spacing inconsistent with the first test case. Consider maintaining consistent spacing across test cases for better readability.
test( 'When called and connectivity is absent, connectivityPresent must be set to false', () async { // Simulate offline state AppConnectivity.isOnline = false; - final model = ProgressDialogViewModel(); - await model.initialise(); - expect(model.connectivityPresent, false); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
test/view_model_tests/progress_dialog_view_model_test.dart(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
test/view_model_tests/progress_dialog_view_model_test.dart (2)
13-15: LGTM! Good use of setUp for test initialization.
The setUp function follows testing best practices by centralizing the connectivity setup, reducing code duplication across test cases.
13-40: Verify if additional test scenarios are needed.
While the current tests cover the basic online/offline scenarios, consider if there are additional cases worth testing:
- State transitions (online -> offline and vice versa)
- Edge cases in the initialization process
- Error handling scenarios
✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can now generate the final response since I have a clear view of the ProgressDialogViewModel implementation.
Current test coverage is sufficient
The existing tests adequately cover the functionality of ProgressDialogViewModel:
- The implementation shows a simple state management with only two paths (online/offline)
- The view model follows a clear pattern: set busy state → check connectivity → update flag → set idle state
- There are no complex state transitions or error scenarios to test, as the connectivity check is a one-time operation during initialization
- The setState calls are inherited from a base class and don't require specific testing in this context
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for additional methods in ProgressDialogViewModel that might need testing
ast-grep --pattern 'class ProgressDialogViewModel {
$$$
}'
# Search for any error handling or state transition logic
rg -A 5 "connectivityPresent" lib/
Length of output: 2157
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop-postgres #2670 +/- ##
====================================================
+ Coverage 95.93% 95.98% +0.05%
====================================================
Files 187 187
Lines 9887 9887
====================================================
+ Hits 9485 9490 +5
+ Misses 402 397 -5 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
@noman2002 PTAL |
|
@noman2002 please review. |
palisadoes
merged commit db0d597
into
PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
lib/view_model/widgets_view_models/progress_dialog_view_model.dartIssue Number:
lib/view_model/widgets_view_models/progress_dialog_view_model.dart#2614Did you add tests for your changes?
Snapshots/Videos:
Summary
lib/view_model/widgets_view_models/progress_dialog_view_model.dartDoes this PR introduce a breaking change?
Have you read the contributing guide?
Summary by CodeRabbit
ProgressDialogViewModelwith additional tests for connectivity states.