Fix Conditional Rendering of TextAreaFormField for Sample Test Type #8960
Conversation
❌ Deploy Preview for care-ohc failed.
|
JavidSumra
changed the title
|
@rithviknishad Can I add extra space after type for that or just display it inline? |
|
you can add it to the right (2nd col. of the grid) like others |
|
@rithviknishad requested changes done |
| {sampleDetails?.sample_type === "OTHER TYPE" && ( | ||
| <div> | ||
| <span className="font-semibold capitalize leading-relaxed"> | ||
| Sample Type Description: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add a space after the colon, similar to what's there for other titles.
On a side note, now's probably the time to add in translations for these titles.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So shall I need to add translation for each field title?
@Jacobjeevan
|
@Jacobjeevan @rithviknishad can u please re-review this |
…f github.com:JavidSumra/care_fe into issues/8958/fix-other-type-text-area
|
@gigincg There is no product requirement for adding a text box for selecting other sample test types in the sample test request form. Can you provide insight into whether it's a required change or not? |
|
Hey @nihal467 I'm not adding textbox it's already present but with the wrong condition for rendering. |
|
In the Sample Test History section on the Patient Details page, the "Other Type" sample request is currently displaying the Sample Test Type Details description under the Sample Test heading. Please update it to display "Other Type" instead. |
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request enhance internationalization (i18n) support across several components, primarily by integrating the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![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)
src/components/Patient/SampleTest.tsx (1)
Line range hint
217-222: Consider internationalizing the field labelThe label "Sample Test Type Details" is hardcoded. Consider using the i18n translation key for consistency with other internationalized strings.
{state.form.sample_type === "9" && ( <TextAreaFormField - {...field("sample_type_other", "Sample Test Type Details")} + {...field("sample_type_other", t("sample_test_details"))} required /> )}Note: This assumes you have the
useTranslationhook set up and the translation key exists in your locale files.src/components/Patient/SampleDetails.tsx (2)
456-463: Consider moving "OTHER TYPE" to constantsThe conditional rendering fix looks good and addresses the visibility issue. However, consider moving the "OTHER TYPE" string to the constants file to maintain consistency with other type choices.
- {sampleDetails?.sample_type === "OTHER TYPE" && ( + {sampleDetails?.sample_type === TEST_TYPE_CHOICES.OTHER_TYPE && (
270-271: Standardize spacing in translation stringsThere are inconsistencies in how spaces are handled around colons in translations:
- Some have space after colon:
{t("status")}:- Some don't:
{t("created_on")}:- Some include space in key:
{t("is_atypical_presentation")}Consider standardizing this across all translations for consistent UI rendering.
Example standardization:
- {t("status")}: + {t("status")}:{" "} - {t("created_on")}: + {t("created_on")}:{" "} - {t("is_atypical_presentation")} + {t("is_atypical_presentation")}:{" "}Also applies to: 280-281, 401-401, 407-407
src/Locale/en.json (3)
306-306: Inconsistent abbreviation formatting in medical terms.The medical abbreviations are formatted inconsistently:
- "ari": "ARI - Acute Respiratory illness"
- "sari": "SARI - Severe Acute Respiratory illness"
Note the inconsistent capitalization of "illness" in both entries.
Apply this diff to maintain consistency:
- "ari": "ARI - Acute Respiratory illness", + "ari": "ARI - Acute Respiratory Illness", - "sari": "SARI - Severe Acute Respiratory illness", + "sari": "SARI - Severe Acute Respiratory Illness",Also applies to: 1102-1102
484-485: Maintain consistent capitalization in related terms.The carrier contact status terms have inconsistent capitalization:
Apply this diff for consistency:
- "contact_with_confirmed_carrier": "Contact with confirmed carrier", - "contact_with_suspected_carrier": "Contact with suspected carrier", + "contact_with_confirmed_carrier": "Contact with Confirmed Carrier", + "contact_with_suspected_carrier": "Contact with Suspected Carrier",
1098-1101: Group related sample test translations together.The sample test related translations are currently scattered. Consider grouping them together with a common prefix for better maintainability.
Apply this diff to improve organization:
- "sample_test_details": "Sample Test Details", - "sample_test_history": "Sample Test History", - "sample_type": "Sample Type", - "sample_type_description": "Sample Type Description", + "sample__details": "Sample Test Details", + "sample__history": "Sample Test History", + "sample__type": "Sample Type", + "sample__type_description": "Sample Type Description",
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
src/Locale/en.json(15 hunks)src/components/Patient/SampleDetails.tsx(6 hunks)src/components/Patient/SampleTest.tsx(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/components/Patient/SampleTest.tsx (3)
Line range hint 89-94: LGTM: Validation logic is consistent
The validation logic correctly checks for the required sample type details when type "9" is selected, maintaining consistency with the rendering condition.
Line range hint 144-148: LGTM: Submission handling is correct
The submission logic correctly handles the conditional inclusion of sample_type_other in the API request, maintaining consistency with the rendering and validation logic.
Line range hint 217-222: Verify SAMPLE_TYPE_CHOICES constant values
The condition has been changed to use "9" as the identifier for "Other Type". While this matches the pattern of using numeric IDs, we should verify that this matches the constant definition.
✅ Verification successful
The condition correctly matches the constant definition
The verification confirms that id: "9" corresponds to "OTHER TYPE" in the SAMPLE_TYPE_CHOICES constant, making the conditional check in the component accurate and consistent with the data structure.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for SAMPLE_TYPE_CHOICES definition
rg "SAMPLE_TYPE_CHOICES.*=.*" -A 10
Length of output: 700
src/components/Patient/SampleDetails.tsx (1)
17-20: LGTM: Clean i18n integration
The integration of react-i18next is done correctly with proper hook initialization.
src/Locale/en.json
Outdated
| "number_of_aged_dependents": "Number of Aged Dependents (Above 60)", | ||
| "number_of_aged_dependents_above_60": "Number Of Aged Dependents (Above 60)", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove duplicate translation key.
There are two keys for the same translation with slightly different text:
Remove the duplicate key:
- "number_of_aged_dependents": "Number of Aged Dependents (Above 60)",
- "number_of_aged_dependents_above_60": "Number Of Aged Dependents (Above 60)",
+ "number_of_aged_dependents": "Number of Aged Dependents (Above 60)",📝 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.
| "number_of_aged_dependents": "Number of Aged Dependents (Above 60)", | |
| "number_of_aged_dependents_above_60": "Number Of Aged Dependents (Above 60)", | |
| "number_of_aged_dependents": "Number of Aged Dependents (Above 60)", |
…f github.com:JavidSumra/care_fe into issues/8958/fix-other-type-text-area
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
src/components/Patient/SampleTestCard.tsx (1)
Line range hint
1-190: Consider enhancing the component to support additional details display.Given that this PR aims to fix the visibility of additional details for "Other Type" samples, this component might need to be updated to display those details when present. Consider:
- Adding a section to display the additional details when sample_type is "Other Type"
- Ensuring consistent capitalization and display format across all sample type displays
Would you like help implementing these enhancements to maintain consistency with the text area feature being added?
src/components/Patient/SampleDetails.tsx (2)
456-463: Consider using constants for sample type comparisonWhile the conditional rendering is correct, using a hardcoded string "OTHER TYPE" could lead to maintainability issues. Consider using a constant from
TEST_TYPE_CHOICESthat's already imported.- {sampleDetails?.sample_type === "OTHER TYPE" && ( + {sampleDetails?.sample_type === TEST_TYPE_CHOICES.find(t => t.text === "Other Type")?.id && (
401-401: Maintain consistent spacing after colons in translationsSome translation strings have inconsistent spacing after colons. For better maintainability and consistent UI, standardize the spacing across all translations.
- {t("is_atypical_presentation")}{" "} + {t("is_atypical_presentation")}:{" "} - {t("is_unusual_course")}{" "} + {t("is_unusual_course")}:{" "} - {t("contact_with_confirmed_carrier")}{" "} + {t("contact_with_confirmed_carrier")}:{" "} - {t("contact_with_suspected_carrier")}{" "} + {t("contact_with_suspected_carrier")}:{" "}Also applies to: 407-407, 429-429, 435-435
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/components/Patient/SampleDetails.tsx(6 hunks)src/components/Patient/SampleTestCard.tsx(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/components/Patient/SampleDetails.tsx (1)
17-20: LGTM: i18n setup is correct
The useTranslation hook is properly imported and initialized following React hooks conventions.
| ? itemData.sample_type | ||
| : itemData.sample_type_other | ||
| )?.toLowerCase()} | ||
| {itemData.sample_type?.toLowerCase()} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response as we have sufficient context about the sample type handling in the codebase:
The change to lowercase is inconsistent with the established sample type handling pattern
The codebase shows that sample types are handled consistently across multiple components with specific handling for "OTHER TYPE":
- In
SampleDetails.tsx, the sample type is displayed with proper casing usingstartCase(camelCase())and has explicit handling for "OTHER TYPE" - In
SampleTest.tsx, there's specific logic for sample type "9" (OTHER TYPE) that shows additional details - The
SAMPLE_TYPE_CHOICESconstant inconstants.tsxdefines "OTHER TYPE" in uppercase
The current change to unconditionally convert the sample type to lowercase breaks this consistency and could affect the visibility logic for the "Other Type" additional details field.
Locations that need attention:
src/components/Patient/SampleTestCard.tsx: Revert the lowercase conversion to maintain consistency with other components- Consider using the same text transformation (
startCase(camelCase())) as used inSampleDetails.tsx
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify the relationship between this change and the PR objectives.
This change simplifies the sample type display logic, but it's unclear how it relates to fixing the text area visibility issue for "Other Type" selections. Additionally, this modification might affect the display consistency mentioned in the PR comments where "Other Type" sample requests need specific handling.
Let's verify the impact:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other components that handle "OTHER TYPE" display
rg -i "OTHER.*TYPE" --type ts --type tsx
# Check for any existing special handling of sample types
ast-grep --pattern 'sample_type.*OTHER'
Length of output: 112
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for "OTHER TYPE" case-insensitively with proper file extension
rg -i "OTHER.*TYPE" -t ts -t tsx
# Search for sample type handling patterns
rg -i "sample_type" -t ts -t tsx -A 2
# Look for conditional rendering related to sample types
ast-grep --pattern 'if ($_ && $_.sample_type) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 187
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for "OTHER TYPE" case-insensitively in all files
rg -i "OTHER.*TYPE"
# Search for sample type handling patterns in all files
rg -i "sample_type" -A 2
# Look for files that might contain sample type handling
fd -e ts -e tsx -e js -e jsx
Length of output: 34469
|
👋 Hi, @JavidSumra, This message is automatically generated by prince-chrismc/label-merge-conflicts-action so don't hesitate to report issues/improvements there. |
…idSumra/care_fe into issues/8958/fix-other-type-text-area
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (22)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientDoctorConnect.cy.ts (3)
1-4: Standardize import paths for better maintainability.Consider using consistent relative paths for all imports. The
pageobject/Patient/PatientDoctorConnectimport uses a different style compared to the others.-import { DoctorConnect } from "pageobject/Patient/PatientDoctorConnect"; +import { DoctorConnect } from "../../pageobject/Patient/PatientDoctorConnect";
Line range hint
6-13: Consider moving test data to fixtures.The hardcoded test data (patient name, user names) should be moved to Cypress fixtures for better maintainability and reusability across tests.
Example structure:
// cypress/fixtures/users.json { "patient": "Dummy Patient 11", "doctor": "Dev Doctor", "nurse": "Dev Staff", "teleIcuDoctor": "Dev Doctor Two" }
Line range hint
26-52: Improve test organization and reliability.The current test case combines multiple functionalities (icon verification, copy functionality, sorting). Consider:
- Split into smaller, focused test cases for better maintainability and debugging
- Add explicit wait strategies instead of relying on implicit waits
- Add error handling for potential failure scenarios
Example refactor:
it("should display correct users under respective sections", () => { patientPage.visitPatient(patientName); doctorconnect.clickDoctorConnectButton(); cy.get("#doctor-connect-home-doctor").should("be.visible") .within(() => { cy.contains(doctorUser).should("exist"); }); // Similar checks for nurse and teleICU }); it("should copy phone number correctly", () => { // Test only copy functionality }); it("should filter users correctly by type", () => { // Test only sorting functionality });cypress/e2e/resource_spec/ResourcesHomepage.cy.ts (1)
Line range hint
24-89: Consider enhancing test robustness with these improvements.While the test cases are well-structured, consider the following improvements:
- Generate phone numbers dynamically to avoid potential conflicts
- Extract notification messages to constants
- Use dynamic or configurable facility search values
- Make network interception more specific with exact endpoint patterns
Example improvements:
+ const TEST_DATA = { + NOTIFICATIONS: { + RESOURCE_CREATED: "Resource request created successfully", + RESOURCE_UPDATED: "Resource request updated successfully", + COMMENT_ADDED: "Comment added successfully" + }, + FACILITY_SEARCH: "dummy facility 40" // Consider moving to test config + }; - const phone_number = "9999999999"; + const phone_number = `9${Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000000000)}`; - cy.intercept("GET", "**/api/v1/facility/**").as("loadFacilities"); + cy.intercept("GET", "**/api/v1/facility/[0-9]+/").as("loadFacilities"); - cy.get("#search").click().type("dummy facility 40"); + cy.get("#search").click().type(TEST_DATA.FACILITY_SEARCH); - facilityPage.verifySuccessNotification("Resource request created successfully"); + facilityPage.verifySuccessNotification(TEST_DATA.NOTIFICATIONS.RESOURCE_CREATED);cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientFileUpload.ts (4)
Line range hint
9-24: Consider moving test data to fixtures.While the test setup is well-structured, hardcoded test data like patient names and file names should be moved to Cypress fixtures for better maintainability and test isolation.
Example implementation:
// cypress/fixtures/patient-files.json { "patients": { "audioTest": "Dummy Patient 3", "fileUpload": "Dummy Patient 4", "permissionTest": "Dummy Patient 5" }, "files": { "audio": "cypress audio", "document": "cypress name", "renamed": "cypress modified name" } }Then in the test:
let testData: any; before(() => { cy.fixture('patient-files').then((data) => { testData = data; }); loginPage.loginAsDistrictAdmin(); cy.saveLocalStorage(); });
Line range hint
46-65: Add retry logic for file upload notifications.The file upload test may be flaky due to timing issues with notifications. Consider adding retry logic and better assertions.
Example implementation:
it("Upload a File and archive it", () => { // ... existing code ... // More robust notification check cy.get('[data-testid="notification"]', { timeout: 10000 }) .should('be.visible') .and('contain', 'File Uploaded Successfully'); // Verify file presence with retries cy.get('[data-testid="uploaded-files"]', { timeout: 10000 }) .should('exist') .and('contain', cypressFileName); });
Line range hint
66-106: Improve security and maintainability of permission tests.The permission test has several areas for improvement:
Credentials should not be hardcoded
User roles should be more explicitly defined
Permission checks should be more comprehensive
Move credentials to environment variables or Cypress.env():
// cypress.config.ts export default { env: { nurse1Username: 'dummynurse1', nurse1Password: 'Coronasafe@123', nurse2Username: 'dummynurse2', nurse2Password: 'Coronasafe@123' } }
- Refactor the permission test:
it("User-level Based Permission for File Modification", () => { const users = { nurse1: { username: Cypress.env('nurse1Username'), password: Cypress.env('nurse1Password'), canEdit: true }, nurse2: { username: Cypress.env('nurse2Username'), password: Cypress.env('nurse2Password'), canEdit: false }, admin: { loginFn: loginPage.loginAsDistrictAdmin, canEdit: true } }; // Test each user's permissions Object.entries(users).forEach(([role, user]) => { if (user.loginFn) { user.loginFn(); } else { loginPage.login(user.username, user.password); } cy.reload(); // Verify permissions patientFileUpload.verifyFileRenameOption(user.canEdit); if (user.canEdit) { // Verify edit functionality patientFileUpload.verifyEditOperations(); } }); });
Line range hint
108-116: Improve test context naming for clarity.While the test reuse is efficient, the context descriptions could be more explicit about the different entry points and their implications.
- "Patient File upload in patient details page", + "Patient File Upload: Via Patient Details Page Icon", - "Patient File upload in patient consultation page", + "Patient File Upload: Via Consultation Page File Tab",cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-168: Consider improving test reliability by addressing potential flakiness.While reviewing the test implementation, I noticed a few areas that could be improved:
- There are explicit wait statements (
cy.wait(5000)) with comments like "temporary hack to fix the failure". These fixed waits can make tests flaky and slow.- The tests rely heavily on UI text matching which can be fragile if the text changes.
Consider these improvements:
- Replace
cy.wait()with more reliable Cypress commands:- cy.wait(5000); // temporary hack to fix the failure + cy.get('[data-testid=skills-list]').should('be.visible');
- Add data-testid attributes for critical elements and use them instead of text matching:
- manageUserPage.assertHomeFacility("No Home Facility"); + manageUserPage.assertHomeFacility('[data-testid=no-home-facility]');cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientRegistration.cy.ts (6)
Line range hint
1-31: Consider improving date handling for better maintainability.The date formatting is currently hardcoded to 'en-IN' locale. Consider:
- Moving the locale to a configuration constant
- Using Cypress's built-in date handling utilities or a library like
date-fns+const DATE_LOCALE = 'en-IN'; + const getRelativeDateString = (deltaDays = 0) => { const date = new Date(); if (deltaDays) { date.setDate(date.getDate() + deltaDays); } return date .toLocaleDateString( - "en-IN", + DATE_LOCALE, { day: "2-digit", month: "2-digit", year: "numeric", } ) .replace(/\//g, ""); };
Line range hint
33-85: Improve test data organization for better maintainability.The test data is currently defined at the suite level with a mix of different concerns (patient details, insurance details, etc.). Consider:
- Organizing test data into separate fixtures
- Grouping related data into objects
// fixtures/patient.data.ts export const patientOneData = { personal: { name: "Patient With No Consultation", gender: "Male", updatedGender: "Female", phone: generatePhoneNumber(), // ... other personal details }, address: { street: "Test Patient Address", pincode: "682001", // ... other address details }, insurance: { first: { subscriberId: "member id 01", // ... other first insurance details }, second: { subscriberId: "member id 02", // ... other second insurance details } } };
Line range hint
87-157: Break down large test case into smaller, focused tests.The "Create a new patient" test case is too long and tests multiple functionalities. Consider:
- Breaking it down into smaller test cases focused on specific features
- Using
beforeEachto set up common test datadescribe("Patient Creation", () => { beforeEach(() => { // Common setup code }); it("should create patient with basic details", () => { // Test basic patient creation }); it("should handle medical history correctly", () => { // Test medical history specific functionality }); // ... more focused test cases });
Line range hint
159-262: Replace arbitrary waits with proper assertions.The test uses multiple
cy.wait(3000)calls which can make tests flaky. Replace them with proper Cypress commands that wait for specific conditions.- cy.wait(3000); + cy.get('[data-testid=patient-form]').should('be.visible'); - cy.wait(5000); + cy.get('[data-testid=patient-details]').should('exist');
Line range hint
264-307: Add error handling for network requests.The patient transfer test case should handle network failures gracefully. Consider:
- Adding proper intercepts for network requests
- Adding error scenarios
it("should handle patient transfer errors", () => { cy.intercept('POST', '/api/transfer', { statusCode: 500, body: { error: 'Internal Server Error' } }).as('transferError'); // Test steps... cy.wait('@transferError'); cy.get('[data-testid=error-message]') .should('be.visible') .and('contain', 'Transfer failed'); });
Add accessibility testing to enhance healthcare application compliance
The codebase currently lacks comprehensive accessibility testing. While there are some ARIA attributes and roles implemented across components, the test suite needs enhancement:
- Add Cypress-Axe integration to
cypress/support/e2e.ts- Include accessibility checks in
PatientRegistration.cy.tsfor critical flows:
- Patient form completion
- Medical history section
- Insurance details form
- Patient dashboard view
Example implementation:
import 'cypress-axe' // Add before each test beforeEach(() => { cy.injectAxe() }) // Add after critical user interactions cy.checkA11y()🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
87-307: Add verification for accessibility attributes.Given that this is a healthcare application, ensure proper accessibility testing is included.
Consider integrating Cypress Axe for automated accessibility testing:
import 'cypress-axe'; // In your test it('should be accessible', () => { cy.injectAxe(); cy.checkA11y(); });
Let me analyze the test file further to check for accessibility testing patterns.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for accessibility-related attributes in the codebase echo "Checking for accessibility attributes..." rg -i 'aria-|role=' --type tsLength of output: 9117
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for accessibility testing libraries and patterns echo "Checking for accessibility testing setup..." rg -i "cy\.checkA11y|cypress-axe" --type ts # Check for data-testid attributes which are commonly used for testing echo -e "\nChecking for test attributes..." rg "data-testid" cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientRegistration.cy.tsLength of output: 333
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts (4)
Line range hint
65-93: Consider enhancing test isolation and error handling.The test modifies patient state without cleanup, which could affect subsequent tests. Consider:
- Adding cleanup in afterEach to reset patient state
- Adding error handling for network requests
- Using more specific assertions for notification messages
Example improvement:
it("Create a new TeleIcu log update for a domicilary care patient", () => { + cy.intercept('POST', '**/api/consultation/**').as('saveConsultation'); patientPage.visitPatient(domicilaryPatient); patientConsultationPage.clickEditConsultationButton(); patientConsultationPage.selectPatientSuggestion("Domiciliary Care"); cy.submitButton("Update Consultation"); + cy.wait('@saveConsultation').its('response.statusCode').should('eq', 200); cy.verifyNotification("Consultation updated successfully"); // ... rest of the test + return cy.task('resetPatientState', domicilaryPatient); // Add cleanup });
Line range hint
95-166: Add data validation in Progress Note test.The test creates a progress note but doesn't verify all the entered data. Consider:
- Validating the diagnosis data after submission
- Verifying investigation frequency
- Checking prescription details in the UI
Example improvement:
cy.verifyNotification("Progress Note created successfully"); cy.closeNotification(); + // Verify saved data + cy.get('#diagnosis-section').within(() => { + cy.contains('1A06').should('be.visible'); + }); + cy.get('#investigation-section').within(() => { + cy.contains('Vitals (GROUP)').should('be.visible'); + cy.contains('Every 6 hours').should('be.visible'); + });
Line range hint
267-319: Enhance MEWS Score test reliability.The MEWS Score test could be more robust:
- Add explicit wait for score calculation
- Verify exact score components
- Test edge cases for score calculation
Example improvement:
patientLogupdate.typeRespiratory(patientRespiratory); cy.get("#consciousness_level-option-RESPONDS_TO_PAIN").click(); cy.submitButton("Save"); cy.verifyNotification("Brief Update created successfully"); cy.closeNotification(); - cy.verifyContentPresence("#consultation-buttons", ["9"]); + // Wait for score calculation and verify components + cy.get("#mews-score").should('be.visible').within(() => { + cy.get('[data-testid="total-score"]').should('have.text', '9'); + cy.get('[data-testid="systolic-score"]').should('have.text', '2'); + cy.get('[data-testid="respiratory-score"]').should('have.text', '3'); + cy.get('[data-testid="consciousness-score"]').should('have.text', '2'); + });
Line range hint
321-323: Enhance test cleanup for better isolation.The afterEach hook only handles localStorage. Consider:
- Resetting patient data to initial state
- Cleaning up created logs
- Resetting any modified UI state
Example improvement:
afterEach(() => { cy.saveLocalStorage(); + // Reset patient data + cy.task('resetTestData', { + patients: [domicilaryPatient, patientOne, patientTwo, patientThree], + resetType: ['logs', 'consultations'] + }); + // Clear any open modals or notifications + cy.get('body').then($body => { + if ($body.find('.modal-open').length) { + cy.get('.modal-close-button').click(); + } + }); });cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientConsultationCreation.cy.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-300: Comprehensive test coverage with well-structured scenarios.The test suite demonstrates excellent practices:
- Proper use of page objects for maintainability
- Comprehensive coverage of various patient consultation scenarios
- Thorough validation of UI elements and workflows
- Good setup/teardown practices with localStorage management
However, considering the PR's objective of fixing the TextAreaFormField rendering for Sample Test Type, there seems to be a gap in test coverage.
Consider adding a test case to verify the TextAreaFormField visibility when "Other Type" is selected in the Sample Test Type dropdown. Here's a suggested test structure:
it("should display TextAreaFormField when Other Type is selected", () => { patientPage.createPatient(); patientPage.selectFacility(facilityName); patientPredefined.createPatient(); patientPage.patientformvisibility(); patientPage.clickCreatePatient(); patientPage.verifyPatientIsCreated(); // Select Sample Test Type as "Other Type" patientConsultationPage.selectSampleTestType("Other Type"); // Verify TextAreaFormField is visible cy.get("[data-testid=sample-test-details]") .should("be.visible") .and("not.be.disabled"); // Verify TextAreaFormField accepts input const testDetails = "Custom test details"; cy.get("[data-testid=sample-test-details]") .type(testDetails) .should("have.value", testDetails); });public/locale/en.json (2)
306-307: Ensure consistent abbreviation formatting.The translation "ARI - Acute Respiratory illness" should maintain consistent capitalization.
- "ari": "ARI - Acute Respiratory illness", + "ari": "ARI - Acute Respiratory Illness",
766-777: Ensure consistent boolean question formatting.The translations for boolean questions should follow a consistent pattern.
- "is_atypical_presentation": "Is Atypical presentation", + "is_atypical_presentation": "Is Atypical Presentation", - "is_unusual_course": "Is unusual course", + "is_unusual_course": "Is Unusual Course",
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (18)
cypress/e2e/assets_spec/AssetHomepage.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/assets_spec/AssetsCreation.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/assets_spec/AssetsManage.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityCreation.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityHomepage.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityInventory.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityManage.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientBedManagement.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientConsultationCreation.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientDoctorConnect.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientFileUpload.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientPrescription.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientRegistration.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/resource_spec/ResourcesHomepage.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersCreation.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts(1 hunks)public/locale/en.json(15 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (6)
- cypress/e2e/assets_spec/AssetHomepage.cy.ts
- cypress/e2e/assets_spec/AssetsCreation.cy.ts
- cypress/e2e/assets_spec/AssetsManage.cy.ts
- cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityCreation.cy.ts
- cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityInventory.cy.ts
- cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityManage.cy.ts
🔇 Additional comments (21)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientBedManagement.cy.ts (2)
Line range hint 1-46: Verify the relevance of these changes to the PR objective.
This test file appears to be unrelated to the main PR objective of fixing the TextAreaFormField rendering for Sample Test Type. While the changes look correct, please clarify why these modifications are necessary as part of this PR.
Let's check for related changes in the Sample Test Type functionality:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Look for related changes in Sample Test Type components and tests
# Expected: Find connections between these changes and the main PR objective
# Search for Sample Test Type related files
rg -l "SampleTest|TextAreaFormField" --type ts --type tsx
# Search for related test files
fd -e cy.ts -e spec.ts . cypress/e2e/ -x rg -l "Sample.*Test|TextArea"2-2: LGTM! Verify the import usage across test files.
The import is correctly used within this test file for instantiating the patientConsultationPage object.
Let's verify if this import is consistently used across other test files:
✅ Verification successful
Import is correctly used and consistent with other test files
The PatientConsultationPage import is properly used in the test file and is consistent with its usage across other test files in the codebase. The search results show that:
- The import is used in multiple test files:
PatientBedManagement.cy.ts,PatientConsultationCreation.cy.ts, andPatientLogUpdate.cy.ts - In each file, it's used to instantiate the page object for testing consultation-related functionality
- The specific usage in
PatientBedManagement.cy.tsis for accessing the edit consultation button, which is required for the bed assignment test case
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for consistent usage of PatientConsultationPage across test files
# Expected: Find other test files that might need this import for consistency
# Search for PatientConsultationPage usage in other test files
rg -t ts "PatientConsultationPage" cypress/e2e/
Length of output: 160
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a more comprehensive search strategy
# 1. Find all test files that use PatientConsultationPage (with context)
rg -A 5 "PatientConsultationPage" cypress/
# 2. Check the specific file content to understand the usage
cat "cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientBedManagement.cy.ts"
# 3. Check for any references to consultation page or related patterns
rg -i "consultation.*page" cypress/e2e/
Length of output: 17267
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientDoctorConnect.cy.ts (2)
Line range hint 54-56: LGTM!
The cleanup strategy using afterEach hook is appropriate and follows best practices.
Line range hint 15-24: Verify custom Cypress command implementation.
The test uses a custom awaitUrl command. Ensure this command is properly defined in your Cypress commands file.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try searching with a different pattern to ensure we don't miss any command definitions.
Let's check the implementation of the awaitUrl command in the commands file we found.
Custom command awaitUrl is properly implemented and widely used
The awaitUrl command is correctly defined in cypress/support/commands.ts and is used consistently across many test files. It provides URL navigation with built-in user verification by intercepting the getcurrentuser API call, which is a good practice for ensuring the application state is ready before proceeding with tests.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for awaitUrl command definition
rg -A 5 "Cypress.Commands.add\('awaitUrl'" || echo "Custom command 'awaitUrl' not found"
Length of output: 137
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for awaitUrl in command files with different patterns
fd -e ts -e js "commands" --exec rg -l "awaitUrl"
# Also search for any file containing awaitUrl definition
rg -l "awaitUrl"
Length of output: 1693
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the implementation of awaitUrl in commands.ts
rg -A 5 "awaitUrl" cypress/support/commands.ts
Length of output: 249
cypress/e2e/resource_spec/ResourcesHomepage.cy.ts (3)
1-4: LGTM! Well-organized imports following page object pattern.
The imports are cleanly organized and follow the page object pattern, which promotes test maintainability and reusability.
Line range hint 6-22: LGTM! Robust test setup with proper state management.
The test setup follows Cypress best practices:
- Proper initialization of page objects
- Efficient state management using local storage
- Clear URL verification for test context
Line range hint 1-89: Verify if these changes belong in this PR.
This file appears to be tangential to the main PR objective of fixing the TextAreaFormField rendering issue. While the changes are clean, consider whether they should be part of a separate PR focused on test organization.
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientFileUpload.ts (2)
Line range hint 1-8: LGTM! Well-structured page object setup.
The code follows the page object pattern effectively, improving test maintainability and reusability.
Line range hint 25-45: Add error handling and file content verification for audio upload test.
The audio recording test should:
- Verify the uploaded file type is correct
- Handle potential upload failures
- Verify the downloaded file matches the uploaded content
Example implementation:
it("Record an Audio and download the file", () => {
// ... existing code ...
// Verify file type
patientFileUpload.verifyUploadFilePresence(cypressAudioName)
.find('[data-testid="file-type"]')
.should('contain', 'audio');
// Handle upload failure
cy.on('fail', (error) => {
if (error.message.includes('File Upload Failed')) {
// Handle the error appropriately
cy.log('Upload failed, retrying...');
patientFileUpload.clickUploadAudioFile();
}
});
// Verify downloaded file
cy.readFile(`cypress/downloads/${cypressAudioName}`).should('exist');
});cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityHomepage.cy.ts (1)
2-5: Verify the necessity of import changes.
The changes to imports, particularly adding AssetPagination, appear unrelated to the PR's objective of fixing the TextAreaFormField conditional rendering for Sample Test Type. Please clarify the relationship between these changes and the main PR objective.
cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts (1)
4-4: LGTM! Import statement is correctly placed.
The import of UserPage from the UserSearch module is properly organized with other related imports.
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientPrescription.cy.ts (1)
3-3: LGTM! Import statement reorganization.
The import statement has been moved but maintains the same functionality.
cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersCreation.cy.ts (2)
3-9: LGTM! Import organization looks good.
The reorganization of imports improves code organization while maintaining all necessary dependencies for the test suite.
Line range hint 1-215: Verify the relevance of these changes to the PR objectives.
While the import reorganization is clean, this file appears unrelated to the main PR objective of fixing the TextAreaFormField conditional rendering for Sample Test Type. Could you clarify why these changes are included in this PR?
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts (1)
5-5: LGTM! Import statement properly uncommented.
The import statement for PatientLogupdate is correctly placed with other page object imports and follows the established pattern.
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientConsultationCreation.cy.ts (1)
3-3: LGTM! Import statements are properly organized and utilized.
The previously commented-out imports are now active and are being used effectively throughout the test cases:
PatientInvestigationfor testing investigation workflowsPatientPredefinedfor patient creationPatientTreatmentPlanfor treatment plan validationsShiftCreationfor patient transfer scenarios
Also applies to: 5-5, 6-6, 8-8, 9-9
public/locale/en.json (5)
484-485: Maintain parallel structure in carrier contact translations.
Both translations follow the same pattern and are consistent.
550-550: Review medical terminology formatting.
The translations maintain proper medical terminology and are correctly formatted.
Also applies to: 568-568, 570-570
907-907: Verify parenthetical information formatting.
The translation maintains consistent formatting with parenthetical information.
1097-1101: Ensure consistent capitalization in sample test translations.
The translations maintain proper capitalization and are consistent with the rest of the file.
1190-1190: Verify date-related translation consistency.
The translation "tested_on" follows the same pattern as other date-related translations in the file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (19)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientDoctorConnect.cy.ts (2)
Line range hint
1-14: Consider improving test data management and import organization.
- Consider moving test data to a separate fixture file to improve maintainability and reusability.
- Group related imports together (page objects, test utilities, etc.).
+ import { DoctorConnect } from "pageobject/Patient/PatientDoctorConnect"; + import { PatientPage } from "../../pageobject/Patient/PatientCreation"; + import LoginPage from "../../pageobject/Login/LoginPage"; + import { testData } from "../fixtures/doctorConnect.json"; // Move test data to fixture describe("Patient Doctor Connect in consultation page", () => { const loginPage = new LoginPage(); const patientPage = new PatientPage(); const doctorconnect = new DoctorConnect(); - const patientName = "Dummy Patient 11"; - const doctorUser = "Dev Doctor"; - const nurseUser = "Dev Staff"; - const teleIcuUser = "Dev Doctor Two"; + const { patientName, doctorUser, nurseUser, teleIcuUser } = testData;
Line range hint
29-54: Consider splitting the test case and adding better assertions.The current test case combines multiple functionalities which could make failures harder to debug. Consider:
Split into separate test cases for:
- User visibility verification
- Phone number copy functionality
- Icon visibility
- Sort functionality
Add explicit wait conditions and better error handling
Example refactor:
it("should display all user types correctly", () => { patientPage.visitPatient(patientName); doctorconnect.clickDoctorConnectButton(); cy.verifyContentPresence("#doctor-connect-home-doctor", [doctorUser]) .should("be.visible"); cy.verifyContentPresence("#doctor-connect-home-nurse", [nurseUser]) .should("be.visible"); cy.verifyContentPresence("#doctor-connect-remote-doctor", [teleIcuUser]) .should("be.visible"); }); it("should copy phone number correctly", () => { doctorconnect.CopyFunctionTrigger(); doctorconnect.clickCopyPhoneNumber("#doctor-connect-home-doctor", doctorUser); doctorconnect.verifyCopiedContent(); }); // Additional test cases for other functionalities...cypress/e2e/resource_spec/ResourcesHomepage.cy.ts (1)
Line range hint
24-26: Consider adding error handling for download verification.The download button test could be enhanced with retry logic and proper error handling, as file downloads can be flaky in E2E tests.
it("Checks if all download button works", () => { - resourcePage.verifyDownloadButtonWorks(); + cy.wrap(null).then(() => { + return cy.wrap(resourcePage.verifyDownloadButtonWorks()) + .should((result) => { + expect(result).to.be.true; + }) + .catch((error) => { + cy.log('Download failed:', error); + throw error; + }); + }); });cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientFileUpload.ts (5)
Line range hint
9-24: Consider improving test data management and error handling.The test setup could be enhanced in the following ways:
- Move hardcoded test data (patient names, credentials) to test fixtures or environment variables
- Add error handling for failed login attempts in the
beforehook- Consider using custom commands for common setup operations
+ // Add at the top of the file + import testData from '../../fixtures/patient-upload-test-data.json'; function runTests( testDescription: string, visitPatientFileUploadSection: () => void, ) { describe(testDescription, () => { - const cypressAudioName = "cypress audio"; - const cypressFileName = "cypress name"; - const newFileName = "cypress modified name"; - const patientNameOne = "Dummy Patient 3"; - const patientNameTwo = "Dummy Patient 4"; - const patientNameThree = "Dummy Patient 5"; + const { audioName, fileName, newFileName, patients } = testData; before(() => { - loginPage.loginAsDistrictAdmin(); + cy.wrap(loginPage.loginAsDistrictAdmin()).then((response) => { + expect(response.status).to.eq(200); + }); cy.saveLocalStorage(); });
Line range hint
26-39: Enhance test reliability for audio recording workflow.The test could be improved to be more robust:
- Add retry logic for file presence verification
- Verify the audio file format and content
- Add explicit waits for notifications to avoid race conditions
it("Record an Audio and download the file", () => { patientPage.visitPatient(patientNameOne); visitPatientFileUploadSection.call(patientFileUpload); patientFileUpload.recordAudio(); patientFileUpload.typeAudioName(cypressAudioName); patientFileUpload.clickUploadAudioFile(); - cy.verifyNotification("File Uploaded Successfully"); + cy.verifyNotification("File Uploaded Successfully", { timeout: 10000 }); - patientFileUpload.verifyUploadFilePresence(cypressAudioName); + cy.get('[data-testid="uploaded-files"]', { timeout: 10000 }) + .should('exist') + .and('contain', cypressAudioName) + .then(($el) => { + // Verify file format + expect($el.find('[data-testid="file-format"]')).to.contain('audio/wav'); + }); cy.get("button").contains("Download").click(); - cy.verifyNotification("Downloading file..."); + cy.verifyNotification("Downloading file...", { timeout: 10000 }); + // Verify downloaded file exists in downloads folder + cy.readFile(`cypress/downloads/${cypressAudioName}.wav`).should('exist'); });
Line range hint
41-56: Add error handling and state persistence checks.The file upload and archive test should handle error cases and verify state persistence:
- Add error handling for failed uploads
- Verify archived state persists after page reload
- Add cleanup in afterEach to ensure test isolation
it("Upload a File and archive it", () => { + cy.intercept('POST', '**/api/files/upload').as('fileUpload'); + cy.intercept('PUT', '**/api/files/archive').as('fileArchive'); patientPage.visitPatient(patientNameTwo); visitPatientFileUploadSection.call(patientFileUpload); patientFileUpload.uploadFile(); patientFileUpload.typeFileName(cypressFileName); patientFileUpload.clickUploadFile(); - cy.verifyNotification("File Uploaded Successfully"); + cy.wait('@fileUpload').then((interception) => { + expect(interception.response.statusCode).to.eq(200); + cy.verifyNotification("File Uploaded Successfully"); + }); cy.closeNotification(); patientFileUpload.verifyUploadFilePresence(cypressFileName); patientFileUpload.archiveFile(); patientFileUpload.clickSaveArchiveFile(); - cy.verifyNotification("File archived successfully"); + cy.wait('@fileArchive').then((interception) => { + expect(interception.response.statusCode).to.eq(200); + cy.verifyNotification("File archived successfully"); + }); patientFileUpload.verifyArchiveFile(cypressFileName); + // Verify state persists after reload + cy.reload(); + patientFileUpload.verifyArchiveFile(cypressFileName); });
Line range hint
58-106: Refactor user permission test for better maintainability.The user permission test is complex and could benefit from:
- Breaking it into smaller, focused test cases
- Using custom commands for common login flows
- Adding proper test data cleanup
- it("User-level Based Permission for File Modification", () => { + describe("User-level Based Permission for File Modification", () => { + beforeEach(() => { + cy.task('db:seed', { entity: 'test-file', name: cypressFileName }); + }); + it("allows Nurse 1 to modify their own files", () => { loginPage.login("dummynurse1", "Coronasafe@123"); cy.reload(); patientPage.visitPatient(patientNameThree); visitPatientFileUploadSection.call(patientFileUpload); // ... test Nurse 1 permissions + }); + it("prevents Nurse 2 from modifying Nurse 1's files", () => { loginPage.login("dummynurse2", "Coronasafe@123"); cy.reload(); // ... test Nurse 2 permissions + }); + it("allows District Admin to modify any file", () => { loginPage.loginAsDistrictAdmin(); cy.reload(); // ... test District Admin permissions + }); + afterEach(() => { + cy.task('db:cleanup', { entity: 'test-file' }); + }); + });
Line range hint
108-117: Improve test descriptions for better clarity.The test execution could be more descriptive about the different contexts being tested:
runTests( - "Patient File upload in patient details page", + "Patient File Upload: via Patient Details Page Navigation", patientFileUpload.clickFileUploadIcon, ); runTests( - "Patient File upload in patient consultation page", + "Patient File Upload: via Patient Consultation Page Navigation", patientFileUpload.clickFileTab, );cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityHomepage.cy.ts (1)
2-3: Consider consolidating Asset-related imports.The
AssetPaginationimport seems to be used only for pagination functionality. Consider moving all Asset-related page objects into a single import statement for better organization.-import { AssetPagination } from "../../pageobject/Asset/AssetPagination"; +import { AssetPagination, AssetHome } from "../../pageobject/Asset";cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientRegistration.cy.ts (4)
Line range hint
9-40: Consider extracting test data to fixtures.The test data (e.g., patient details, facility names, etc.) is currently defined as constants in the test file. Consider moving this to Cypress fixtures for better maintainability and reusability.
Example structure:
// fixtures/patient-data.json { "patientOne": { "name": "Patient With No Consultation", "gender": "Male", "updatedGender": "Female", "address": "Test Patient Address", // ... other patient details } }
Line range hint
156-187: Strengthen assertions in patient details verification.The patient details verification could be more robust by:
- Adding explicit assertions for each field instead of relying on the generic
verifyPatientDashboardDetails- Verifying the response status and body of API calls
Example improvement:
it("Create a new patient with all field in registration form and no consultation", () => { // ... existing code ... // Intercept and verify API response cy.intercept('POST', '/api/patient').as('createPatient'); patientPage.clickCreatePatient(); cy.wait('@createPatient').then((interception) => { expect(interception.response.statusCode).to.equal(201); expect(interception.response.body).to.have.property('id'); }); // Explicit field-by-field verification cy.get('[data-testid="patient-name"]').should('have.text', patientOneName); cy.get('[data-testid="patient-gender"]').should('have.text', patientOneGender); // ... other field verifications });
Line range hint
189-251: Improve waiting strategy in edit patient test.The test uses arbitrary
cy.wait(3000)calls which could lead to flaky tests. Consider using Cypress's built-in retry-ability and network waiting instead.Example improvement:
it("Edit the patient details with no consultation and verify", () => { // ... existing code ... // Replace arbitrary waits with proper network waiting cy.intercept('PUT', '/api/patient/*').as('updatePatient'); patientPage.clickUpdatePatient(); cy.wait('@updatePatient') .its('response.statusCode') .should('eq', 200); // Replace cy.wait(5000) with proper element waiting cy.get('[data-testid="patient-dashboard"]') .should('be.visible') .within(() => { // Verify patient details }); });
Line range hint
253-297: Add error case coverage in transfer tests.While the happy path and same-facility error case are covered, consider adding more error scenarios for patient transfer:
- Invalid phone number
- Non-existent patient
- Network failures
Example additional test:
it("Should handle invalid phone number during transfer", () => { patientPage.createPatient(); patientPage.selectFacility(patientTransferFacility); patientPage.patientformvisibility(); patientPage.typePatientPhoneNumber('invalid'); patientTransfer.clickAdmitPatientRecordButton(); cy.get('[data-testid="error-message"]') .should('be.visible') .and('contain', 'Invalid phone number'); });cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts (3)
Line range hint
8-324: Consider enhancing test maintainability and robustness.A few suggestions to improve the test suite:
- Move test data to fixtures to improve maintainability:
// fixtures/patient-log-data.json { "patients": { "domiciliary": "Dummy Patient 11", "admitted": { "one": "Dummy Patient 9", "two": "Dummy Patient 10", "three": "Dummy Patient 8" } }, "beds": { "one": "Dummy Bed 5", "two": "Dummy Bed 2", "three": "Dummy Bed 3" }, "vitals": { "systolic": "149", "diastolic": "119", // ... other vitals } }
- Extract commonly used strings into constants:
const NOTIFICATIONS = { PROGRESS_NOTE_CREATED: "Progress Note created successfully", CONSULTATION_UPDATED: "Consultation updated successfully", // ... other notifications };
- Add more robust verifications:
// Instead of just verifying content presence cy.verifyContentPresence("#consultation-preview", [patientCategory]); // Also verify the exact values and structure cy.get("#consultation-preview") .find("[data-testid='patient-category']") .should("have.text", patientCategory);
- Consider breaking down larger test cases into smaller, focused ones using
beforeEachfor common setup.
Line range hint
8-324: Consider adding more error scenario coverage.Suggest adding test cases for:
- Network failures:
it("handles network errors gracefully", () => { cy.intercept("POST", "/api/patient/log", { statusCode: 500, body: { message: "Internal Server Error" } }).as("saveLog"); // Perform actions that trigger the API call // Verify error handling });
- Form validation:
it("validates required fields", () => { // Submit form without required fields cy.submitButton("Save"); // Verify validation messages cy.get("[data-testid='error-message']") .should("be.visible") .and("contain", "Required field"); });
- Edge cases:
- Maximum/minimum values for vital signs
- Special characters in text fields
- Concurrent updates
Line range hint
325-329: Consider adding explicit test data cleanup.To ensure test isolation, consider adding cleanup in the
afterEachhook:afterEach(() => { // Save localStorage as currently done cy.saveLocalStorage(); // Clean up test data cy.task("cleanupTestData", { patients: [patientOne, patientTwo, patientThree, domicilaryPatient] }); // Reset application state cy.window().then((win) => { win.sessionStorage.clear(); }); });public/locale/en.json (3)
306-306: LGTM! Consider expanding medical abbreviations for clarity.The medical condition keys follow a consistent naming pattern. However, consider adding comments or expanding the abbreviations in the values for better clarity:
- "ari": "ARI - Acute Respiratory illness", + "ari": "ARI - Acute Respiratory Illness", - "sari": "SARI - Severe Acute Respiratory illness", + "sari": "SARI - Severe Acute Respiratory Illness"Also applies to: 1102-1102
1098-1099: Consider adding placeholders for dynamic content in sample test related strings.For better internationalization support, consider adding placeholders for dynamic content that might need different word ordering in other languages:
- "sample_test_details": "Sample Test Details", + "sample_test_details": "Sample Test Details for {{testName}}", - "sample_test_history": "Sample Test History", + "sample_test_history": "Sample Test History for {{patientName}}", - "sample_type_description": "Sample Type Description", + "sample_type_description": "Description for {{sampleType}}"Also applies to: 1101-1101
907-907: Consider adding a note about the age threshold.The key includes the age threshold in parentheses, which is good. However, consider adding it as a separate configuration value in case the threshold needs to change:
- "number_of_aged_dependents": "Number of Aged Dependents (Above 60)", + "number_of_aged_dependents": "Number of Aged Dependents (Above {{ageThreshold}})"
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (18)
cypress/e2e/assets_spec/AssetHomepage.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/assets_spec/AssetsCreation.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/assets_spec/AssetsManage.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityCreation.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityHomepage.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityInventory.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityManage.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientBedManagement.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientConsultationCreation.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientDoctorConnect.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientFileUpload.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientPrescription.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientRegistration.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/resource_spec/ResourcesHomepage.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersCreation.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts(1 hunks)public/locale/en.json(15 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (6)
- cypress/e2e/assets_spec/AssetHomepage.cy.ts
- cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityCreation.cy.ts
- cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityInventory.cy.ts
- cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityManage.cy.ts
- cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientConsultationCreation.cy.ts
- cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersCreation.cy.ts
🔇 Additional comments (14)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientBedManagement.cy.ts (2)
2-2: LGTM! Import statement cleanup looks good.
The import statement for PatientConsultationPage is properly organized and the component is correctly used in the test file.
Line range hint 1-47: Verify the relevance of this file change to the PR objectives.
This file only contains an import statement cleanup, but the PR's main objective is to fix the conditional rendering of TextAreaFormField for Sample Test Type. Please clarify if this change is intentional or if it was accidentally included in this PR.
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientDoctorConnect.cy.ts (3)
Line range hint 16-28: LGTM! Well-structured test lifecycle management.
The test setup follows Cypress best practices:
- Proper use of
before/beforeEachhooks - Efficient local storage handling
- Clean state management with filter clearing
Line range hint 56-58: LGTM! Proper test cleanup.
The afterEach hook correctly preserves the local storage state for subsequent tests.
Line range hint 1-58: Add test coverage for TextAreaFormField conditional rendering.
The PR's main objective is to fix the conditional rendering of TextAreaFormField for "Other Type" sample tests, but this functionality isn't covered in the current test suite.
Would you like me to help create a new test case that verifies the TextAreaFormField's conditional rendering behavior?
cypress/e2e/resource_spec/ResourcesHomepage.cy.ts (2)
1-3: LGTM! Clean import organization.
The imports are now well-organized, following a logical order with the page objects grouped together.
Line range hint 1-89: Comprehensive test coverage with robust implementation.
The test suite demonstrates excellent practices:
- Proper use of page object pattern for maintainability
- Comprehensive coverage of core functionalities
- Robust setup/teardown with localStorage management
- Effective API interception for async operations
- Clear assertions and error messages
Let's verify the consistency of page object usage across other test files:
✅ Verification successful
Page object pattern consistently implemented across test files
The verification confirms excellent consistency in page object pattern implementation across the test suite:
- All test files properly import page objects from the
pageobjectdirectory - Consistent instantiation pattern using
const instance = new PageClass() - Clear separation of concerns with dedicated page objects for different features (Login, Facility, Patient, Asset etc.)
- Proper reuse of common page objects like
LoginPageacross multiple test files
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for consistent page object pattern usage across test files
# Expect: Similar import structure and usage of page objects
# Search for page object imports in test files
rg -A 3 "import \w+Page from.*pageobject" "cypress/e2e/"
# Search for page object instantiation pattern
rg "const \w+ = new \w+Page\(\)" "cypress/e2e/"
Length of output: 18060
cypress/e2e/assets_spec/AssetsCreation.cy.ts (1)
2-5: LGTM! Import changes are well-organized.
The addition of AssetSearchPage import and the grouping of related imports improve code organization.
cypress/e2e/facility_spec/FacilityHomepage.cy.ts (1)
2-5: Verify the relationship between import changes and PR objectives.
While the import reorganization improves code organization, these changes seem unrelated to the PR's main objective of fixing the TextAreaFormField conditional rendering issue. The changes to import statements should be in a separate PR focused on code cleanup.
Let's verify if these import changes are necessary for the TextAreaFormField fix:
cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts (2)
4-4: LGTM: Import statement is correctly used.
The UserPage import is properly utilized in the test suite (instantiated on line 8), maintaining good page object pattern practices.
4-4: Verify relevance to PR objectives.
This change appears unrelated to the PR's main objective of fixing the conditional rendering of TextAreaFormField for Sample Test Type. Please clarify how this import modification contributes to addressing issue #8958.
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientPrescription.cy.ts (1)
3-3: LGTM: Import statement is correctly uncommented.
The import is necessary as it's used to instantiate the patientPrescription object used throughout the test suite.
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientLogUpdate.cy.ts (1)
5-5: LGTM! Import statement follows Page Object Model pattern.
The import statement is properly structured and maintains consistency with other imports in the file.
public/locale/en.json (1)
484-485: LGTM! Contact tracing and travel history keys are well-structured.
The keys and values for contact tracing and travel history are clear and consistent.
Also applies to: 570-570
Proposed Changes
TextAreaFormFieldon "OTHER TYPE" selections in the sample type dropdown.@ohcnetwork/care-fe-code-reviewers
Merge Checklist
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation