Refactor: jest to vitest: Fixes #2485

[bandhan-majumder]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Refractor from jest to vitest

Issue Number:

Fixes #2485

Snapshots/Videos:

Have you read the contributing guide?

yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Transitioned testing framework from Jest to Vitest for improved performance and maintainability.
  • Streamlined test cases for the AdvertisementRegister component, enhancing readability and efficiency.
  • Updated mocking and timer methods for consistency with Vitest standards.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request involve refactoring the test file AdvertisementRegister.spec.tsx from Jest to Vitest. This includes updating mock implementations, timer functions, and event handling to align with Vitest's syntax. The test cases have been streamlined for improved readability while maintaining the overall logic and coverage of the tests. The modifications ensure that the test suite is compatible with the Vitest framework, enhancing clarity and maintainability.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementRegister/AdvertisementRegister.spec.tsx	Updated from Jest to Vitest by replacing jest with vi for mocking, timer functions, and function mocks. Streamlined test cases by removing unnecessary waitFor calls and ensuring consistent element querying using screen.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Replace Jest-specific functions and mocks with Vitest equivalents (2485)	✅
Ensure all tests pass after migration using npm run test:vitest (2485)	✅
Maintain the test coverage for the file as 100% after migration (2485)	✅

Possibly related issues

• Refactor : src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementEntry/AdvertisementEntry.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2484: This issue involves refactoring another test file from Jest to Vitest, similar to the changes made in this PR.
• Refactor : src/components/Advertisements/Advertisements.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2486: This issue also focuses on refactoring a test file to Vitest, aligning with the objectives of this PR.

Possibly related PRs

• Refactored src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2482: This PR involves refactoring tests from Jest to Vitest, similar to the main PR's focus on transitioning the AdvertisementRegister.spec.tsx file to Vitest.
• Refactored src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2501: This PR also refactors a test file from Jest to Vitest, aligning with the changes made in the main PR regarding the testing framework transition.
• Refactor: Adding vitest to Avatar component #2622: This PR focuses on migrating the Avatar component's tests from Jest to Vitest, which is directly related to the main PR's changes in transitioning the testing framework for the AdvertisementRegister component.

Suggested labels

refactor

Suggested reviewers

• pranshugupta54
• varshith257

Poem

In the land of tests, we hop and play,
Switching from Jest to Vitest today.
With mocks and timers, all in a row,
Our test suite's ready, watch it glow!
Clear and concise, like a rabbit's leap,
In code we trust, our coverage to keep! 🐇✨

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 384509d and 166530f.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementRegister/AdvertisementRegister.spec.tsx (16 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementRegister/AdvertisementRegister.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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 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 generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Experiment)
• @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.

[github-actions]

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

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)

src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementRegister/AdvertisementRegister.spec.tsx (3)

156-162: Consider adding mock reset in afterEach

While the timer setup is correct, consider adding vi.resetAllMocks() in the afterEach block to ensure complete test isolation.

 afterEach(() => {
   vi.useRealTimers();
+  vi.resetAllMocks();
 });

---

190-190: Consider using more specific spy assertions

The setTimeoutSpy is only checked for being called, but not for its specific timing or callback. Consider adding more specific assertions:

-    expect(setTimeoutSpy).toHaveBeenCalled();
+    expect(setTimeoutSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expect.any(Function), expect.any(Number));

Also applies to: 358-358, 407-407

---

546-547: Replace vi.runAllTimersAsync with more specific timer advancement

Instead of running all timers asynchronously, consider using a more specific timer advancement to make the test more predictable:

-    await waitFor(async () => {
-      vi.runAllTimersAsync();
-    });
+    await waitFor(() => {
+      vi.advanceTimersByTime(300); // Replace 300 with the expected timeout duration
+    });

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c2630ae and 045aab1.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementRegister/AdvertisementRegister.spec.tsx (16 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

src/components/Advertisements/core/AdvertisementRegister/AdvertisementRegister.spec.tsx (1)

37-41: LGTM: Mock implementations correctly migrated to Vitest

The mock implementations have been properly migrated from Jest to Vitest, maintaining the same functionality while adapting to Vitest's syntax.

Also applies to: 144-153

[bandhan-majumder]

Here is the PR that is unable to mock create and update mutation response. Please look at it @varshith257. More details added here

[bandhan-majumder]

I had one global usefake and usereal for all. I removed them and added individually for the ones which needed and were suggested. It still fails. It shows like previous, it's a timeout issue Error: Test timed out in 5000ms. But even if I increase the time, it fails as the response is not even coming.

[palisadoes]

Please fix the failing tests