Skip to content
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

Refactored src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2501

Conversation

adithyanotfound
Copy link

@adithyanotfound adithyanotfound commented Nov 30, 2024

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Refactoring

Issue Number:

Fixes #2478

Did you add tests for your changes?

Yes

Snapshots/Videos:

Screenshot 2024-11-30 at 10 34 37 AM Screenshot 2024-11-30 at 10 35 47 AM

Summary

Migrated test for AddOnEntry.tsx from jest to vitest.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

No

Have you read the contributing guide?

Yes.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Introduced a comprehensive suite of tests for the AddOnEntry component, ensuring functionality and reliability through various scenarios.
    • Verified rendering with props, default values, and the correct operation of the uninstall button.
    • Confirmed proper redirection behavior and presence of key text elements.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 30, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request introduce a new test suite for the AddOnEntry component, transitioning from Jest to Vitest. The newly created file, AddOnEntry.spec.tsx, implements a comprehensive set of tests using React Testing Library and Vitest, ensuring the component's functionalities are verified under various scenarios. Key aspects tested include rendering with props, default values, button interactions, and navigation behavior. The tests utilize mocked providers for Apollo and Redux to isolate the component from backend dependencies.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.spec.tsx Introduced a new test suite for the AddOnEntry component using Vitest, covering rendering, default values, button functionality, and navigation.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Refactor src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest (#[2478])

Possibly related issues

Possibly related PRs

🐰 "In the meadow where the bunnies play,
A new test suite hops in today!
With Vitest's magic, our code's in line,
Ensuring AddOnEntry will always shine!
So let us cheer, with a twitch of our nose,
For robust tests, as the rabbit knows!" 🐇


📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between fec6c58 and 80867c2.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.spec.tsx (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.spec.tsx

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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

Our Pull Request Approval Process

Thanks for contributing!

Testing Your Code

Remember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:

  1. We don't merge PRs with poor code quality.
    1. Follow coding best practices such that CodeRabbit.ai approves your PR.
  2. We don't merge PRs with failed tests.
    1. When tests fail, click on the Details link to learn more.
    2. Write sufficient tests for your changes (CodeCov Patch Test). Your testing level must be better than the target threshold of the repository
    3. Tests may fail if you edit sensitive files. Ask to add the ignore-sensitive-files-pr label if the edits are necessary.
  3. We cannot merge PRs with conflicting files. These must be fixed.

Our policies make our code better.

Reviewers

Do not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
When your PR has been assigned reviewers contact them to get your code reviewed and approved via:

  1. comments in this PR or
  2. our slack channel

Reviewing Your Code

Your reviewer(s) will have the following roles:

  1. arbitrators of future discussions with other contributors about the validity of your changes
  2. point of contact for evaluating the validity of your work
  3. person who verifies matching issues by others that should be closed.
  4. person who gives general guidance in fixing your tests

CONTRIBUTING.md

Read our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:

  1. PRs with issues not assigned to you will be closed by the reviewer
  2. Fix the first comment in the PR so that each issue listed automatically closes

Other

  1. 🎯 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.
  2. Read the CONTRIBUTING.md file make

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a 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 and nitpick comments (3)
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.spec.tsx (3)

42-42: Consider using beforeEach for mockID reset.

Using a mutable variable across tests can lead to test interdependence. Consider resetting it before each test.

+beforeEach(() => {
+  mockID = '1';
+});

50-64: Reduce props duplication using a test factory.

The props object is duplicated across multiple test cases. Consider creating a factory function.

const createTestProps = (overrides = {}) => ({
  id: '1',
  title: 'Test Addon',
  description: 'Test addon description',
  createdBy: 'Test User',
  component: 'string',
  installed: true,
  configurable: true,
  modified: true,
  isInstalled: true,
  uninstalledOrgs: [],
  enabled: true,
  getInstalledPlugins: () => ({ sample: 'sample' }),
  ...overrides
});

Also applies to: 107-122, 142-157


141-184: Split uninstall button test into separate cases.

The uninstall button test is testing multiple behaviors in a single test. Consider splitting it for better clarity and maintenance.

describe('Uninstall Button', () => {
  test('shows "Install" text initially', async () => {
    // Test initial state
  });

  test('shows success message when uninstalling', async () => {
    // Test uninstall flow
  });

  test('shows success message when installing', async () => {
    // Test install flow
  });
});
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c80b44f and 233ca85.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
  • package-lock.json is excluded by !**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.spec.tsx (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.spec.tsx (3)

1-26: LGTM! Comprehensive test setup with appropriate imports.

The imports cover all necessary testing utilities and dependencies for a complete test environment.


186-200: LGTM! Good navigation test.

The test properly verifies the redirect behavior when orgId is undefined.


1-201: Successfully migrated from Jest to Vitest.

The test suite has been properly migrated to Vitest while maintaining good test coverage and practices. All Jest-specific APIs have been replaced with their Vitest equivalents, and the file has been correctly renamed to .spec.tsx.

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot previously approved these changes Nov 30, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 30, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.78%. Comparing base (c80b44f) to head (80867c2).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #2501       +/-   ##
=====================================================
- Coverage             95.82%   83.78%   -12.04%     
=====================================================
  Files                   295      312       +17     
  Lines                  7037     8117     +1080     
  Branches               1520     1776      +256     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   6743     6801       +58     
- Misses                   98     1177     +1079     
+ Partials                196      139       -57     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@palisadoes palisadoes added the refactor Refactor the code to improve its quality label Dec 1, 2024
@palisadoes palisadoes requested review from AVtheking and removed request for AVtheking December 1, 2024 04:21
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
refactor Refactor the code to improve its quality
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants