added #2683
added #2683
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@MayankJha014 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 15 minutes and 20 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces a new test file for the Changes
Possibly related issues
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: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
test/views/after_auth_screens/profile/edit_profile_page_test.dart (4)
1-9: Consider organizing or removing unused imports.
At first glance, all these imports appear relevant, though you might want to remove or comment out any imports that are not strictly necessary to keep the test file lightweight and maintainable.
13-31: Ensure robust testing of thecreateEditProfilePagewidget builder.
The function sets up the entireEditProfilePagefor testing, which is great. However, consider adding parameterized tests or additional checks if there are multiple states or properties that this page can assume (e.g., loading, error). This would help ensure comprehensive coverage of all scenarios.
54-74: Good approach testing bottom sheet behavior - consider tapping "gallery" button.
You’ve tested the camera option, but you can also consider testing the gallery option to ensure it’s dispatched properly. This helps validate all paths in the bottom sheet.
108-119: Comprehensive check for email presence.
Testing forIcons.emailis a nice detail. If the email handling includes complex logic, you might expand testing to interactions (e.g., changing email placeholder text or read-only states).
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
test/views/after_auth_screens/profile/edit_profile_page_test.dart(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
test/views/after_auth_screens/profile/edit_profile_page_test.dart (4)
34-38: Validate your test setup across multiple widgets.
The testSetupLocator() and registerServices() calls in setUpAll effectively prepare dependencies for the entire test suite. Confirm that these services won't inadvertently conflict with or bleed into other tests. Consider scoping service registration more narrowly if needed.
40-52: Well-structured test verifying basic UI elements.
These assertions confirm that the profile image and the button are rendered. Additionally, it might be beneficial to confirm any default states or placeholder images in case the user doesn't have a profile image.
76-87: Solid test coverage for field presence.
Verifying the presence of text fields covers the UI aspect. For thoroughness, you might test validations or edge cases (e.g., empty fields) if the page enforces them.
89-106: Excellent verification of the updateUserProfile call.
This test properly confirms that the view model method is called with specific arguments. Consider verifying the correctness of the first/last name inputs if logic is involved (e.g., non-empty fields).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
test/views/after_auth_screens/profile/edit_profile_page_test.dart (1)
13-31: Consider enhancing the helper function's flexibility.While the current implementation is functional, consider these improvements:
- Add error handling for model initialization
- Make locale configurable for testing different languages
- Allow customization of initial viewModel state
-Widget createEditProfilePage({required EditProfilePageViewModel viewModel}) { +Widget createEditProfilePage({ + required EditProfilePageViewModel viewModel, + Locale locale = const Locale('en'), + Function(EditProfilePageViewModel)? onModelReady, +}) { return BaseView<EditProfilePageViewModel>( - onModelReady: (model) => model.initialize(), + onModelReady: (model) async { + try { + await model.initialize(); + onModelReady?.call(model); + } catch (e) { + debugPrint('Failed to initialize model: $e'); + } + }, builder: (context, model, child) { return MaterialApp( - locale: const Locale('en'), + locale: locale,
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
test/views/after_auth_screens/profile/edit_profile_page_test.dart(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
test/views/after_auth_screens/profile/edit_profile_page_test.dart (2)
1-12: LGTM! Imports are well-organized and complete.
All necessary testing and localization dependencies are properly imported.
10-11: Verify test helper implementation.
Ensure the test helpers properly mock all required dependencies.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the test helper implementations to ensure they properly mock all dependencies.
Let me check one more thing to verify the mock implementations.
Test helpers are properly implemented with comprehensive mocking
The test helpers implementation is well-structured and complete:
- All necessary dependencies are properly mocked using the
mockitoframework - The
registerServices()function sets up all required mock services including navigation, GraphQL, user config, and various other services - Each mock service has proper initialization with default behavior where needed
- The test locator correctly manages singleton registrations with proper cleanup
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check test helper implementation
rg -A 10 "void registerServices|void testSetupLocator" test/helpers/
Length of output: 1379
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the actual implementation of mock registration functions
rg -A 5 "getAndRegister\w+" test/helpers/test_helpers.dart
Length of output: 9589
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for mock class definitions
rg "class Mock\w+" test/helpers/
Length of output: 2711
test/views/after_auth_screens/profile/edit_profile_page_test.dart
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| void main() { | ||
| setUpAll(() { | ||
| TestWidgetsFlutterBinding.ensureInitialized(); | ||
| testSetupLocator(); | ||
| registerServices(); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add tearDown to ensure proper test isolation.
The setup is good but missing cleanup. Add tearDown to prevent test interference.
void main() {
setUpAll(() {
TestWidgetsFlutterBinding.ensureInitialized();
testSetupLocator();
registerServices();
});
+
+ tearDownAll(() {
+ locator.reset();
+ });📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| void main() { | |
| setUpAll(() { | |
| TestWidgetsFlutterBinding.ensureInitialized(); | |
| testSetupLocator(); | |
| registerServices(); | |
| }); | |
| void main() { | |
| setUpAll(() { | |
| TestWidgetsFlutterBinding.ensureInitialized(); | |
| testSetupLocator(); | |
| registerServices(); | |
| }); | |
| tearDownAll(() { | |
| locator.reset(); | |
| }); | |
|
Please fix the first comment so that each issue listed automatically closes. The PR_GUIDELINES.md file has details. Please also fill in the template for the pull request as completely as you can. It greatly helps others searching for code changes in future and helps others understand the summarized rationale for the work you have done Also make sure the title is easily searchable for terms related to what the PR is about. Closing |
Issue #2621
Summary by CodeRabbit