adding vitest in avatar.spec.test

[NishantSinghhhhh]

Feature/Refactoring Avatar component

Issue Number : #2492

Did you add tests for your changes?
Yes

Snapshots/Videos:

Screencast.from.2024-12-04.23-13-59.webm

Summary

I have changed the file named [src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts]
reason being it was showing ts error , I even solved it but due to the change , there error coming in othr components too , so I have used ts-ignore for the time being

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
I have added 1 dependencies which was reqired to add new tests as stated by coderabbit ai

Migrated the testing framework to Vitest.
Updated all test files and configurations to be compatible with Vitest's syntax and features.
Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Introduced a new schema for the name field in the tagTemplate, enhancing its structure for rendering.
  • Made the Role enum accessible externally, improving usability across components.

• Bug Fixes

  • Enhanced test coverage for the EventCalendar component, including navigation and rendering behavior.

• Tests

  • Added comprehensive test suites for the Avatar and EventCalendar components, ensuring proper functionality and rendering.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces a new test suite for the Avatar component, enhancing its test coverage using React Testing Library and Vitest. Additionally, it adds a schema definition for a name field in the tagTemplate object, and modifies the Role enum in the EventCalendar component to be exported. The changes improve the testing framework and component definitions without altering existing functionalities.

Changes

File Path	Change Summary
src/components/Avatar/Avatar.spec.tsx	Introduced a test suite for the Avatar component with multiple test cases using Vitest.
src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts	Added a new schema definition for a name field in the tagTemplate object.
src/components/EventCalendar/EventCalendar.tsx	Changed Role enum from standard to exported, allowing external access.
src/components/EventCalendar/EventCalendar.test.tsx	Added tests for Role enum, month/year navigation, and date transitions in the calendar.

Possibly related issues

• Refactor : src/components/Avatar/Avatar.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2492: This issue requests refactoring the Avatar test file from Jest to Vitest, which aligns with the new Avatar.spec.tsx file created in this PR.
• Refactor : src/components/CheckIn/CheckInModal.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2494: This issue involves refactoring the CheckInModal test file from Jest to Vitest, relevant due to the changes in tagTemplate.ts.
• Refactor : src/components/CheckIn/CheckInWrapper.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2495: Related to refactoring the CheckInWrapper test file, which is part of the broader migration to Vitest.
• Refactor : src/components/CheckIn/TableRow.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2496: Refactoring the TableRow test file from Jest to Vitest, consistent with the migration efforts.
• Refactor : src/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTag.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2483: This issue is about refactoring AddPeopleToTag tests to Vitest, similar to the changes in this PR.
• Refactor: src/screens/OrgContribution from Jest to Vitest #2564: Refactoring the OrgContribution tests to Vitest, relevant to the migration theme.
• Refactor: src/screens/UserPortal/UserScreen from Jest to Vitest #2580: Related to refactoring the UserScreen tests to Vitest.
• Refactor : src/components/ChangeLanguageDropdown/ChangeLanguageDropdown.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2493: Refactoring the ChangeLanguageDropdown tests to Vitest, aligning with the overall migration.

Possibly related PRs

• Tests for newly created events #2410: Updates the test suite for the EventCalendar component, relevant as it also involves testing components.
• Refactored src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2482: Refactors tests for the Action component using Vitest, similar to the introduction of the Avatar test suite.
• Refactored src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2501: Refactors tests for the AddOnEntry component, consistent with the introduction of the Avatar test suite.

Suggested labels

refactor, ignore-sensitive-files-pr

Suggested reviewers

• varshith257
• pranshugupta54

Poem

In the garden of code, we hop and play,
With tests for the Avatar, brightening the day.
A schema for names, and enums that shine,
Together we build, making everything fine!
Hopping through changes, with joy we impart,
In the world of code, we each play a part! 🐇✨

---

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 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: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (8)

src/components/Avatar/Avatar.tsx (2)

7-7: Consider adding JSDoc comments for interface properties

The interface has been updated with new optional properties, but the JSDoc comments above the component don't reflect these changes. Consider adding documentation for the customUrl property and updating the name property's description to indicate it's optional with a default value.

 interface InterfaceAvatarProps {
+  /** The name used to generate the avatar. Optional, defaults to 'Guest'. */
   name?: string;
   alt?: string;
   size?: number;
   containerStyle?: string;
   avatarStyle?: string;
   dataTestId?: string;
   radius?: number;
+  /** Optional custom URL for the avatar image. Must be a valid URL. */
   customUrl?: string;
 }

Also applies to: 14-14

---

42-49: Enhance error handling for invalid custom URLs

The current implementation silently falls back to the generated avatar when an invalid URL is provided. Consider:

1. Using a more descriptive warning message
2. Including the invalid URL in the warning for debugging
3. Adding error boundary protection

     if (customUrl) {
       try {
         new URL(customUrl);
         return customUrl;
       } catch {
-        console.warn('Invalid custom URL provided to Avatar component');
+        console.warn(
+          `Invalid URL provided to Avatar component: "${customUrl}". Falling back to generated avatar.`
+        );
       }
     }

src/components/Avatar/Avatar.spec.tsx (2)

141-152: Enhance custom URL test coverage

While the basic custom URL test is good, consider adding tests for:

1. URLs with different protocols (https, http, data)
2. URLs with special characters
3. International domain names

+  test.each([
+    ['HTTPS URL', 'https://example.com/avatar.png'],
+    ['HTTP URL', 'http://example.com/avatar.png'],
+    ['International domain', 'https://例子.com/avatar.png'],
+    ['URL with special chars', 'https://example.com/avatar%20image.png'],
+    ['Data URL', '...']
+  ])('accepts valid %s', (_, url) => {
+    renderAvatar({
+      name: 'Test User',
+      customUrl: url
+    });
+
+    const avatarElement = screen.getByAltText('Dummy Avatar');
+    expect(avatarElement.getAttribute('src')).toBe(url);
+  });

---

154-163: Enhance invalid URL test cases

Consider adding more specific test cases for invalid URLs and verify the console warning.

+  test.each([
+    ['empty string', ''],
+    ['invalid protocol', 'invalid://example.com'],
+    ['malformed URL', 'not-a-url'],
+    ['missing protocol', 'example.com/avatar.png']
+  ])('handles %s gracefully', (_, invalidUrl) => {
+    const consoleSpy = vi.spyOn(console, 'warn');
+    
     renderAvatar({
       name: 'John Doe',
-      customUrl: '',
+      customUrl: invalidUrl,
     });

     const avatarElement = screen.getByAltText('Dummy Avatar');
     expect(avatarElement.getAttribute('src')).toContain('data:image/svg+xml');
+    expect(consoleSpy).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
+      expect.stringContaining('Invalid URL provided to Avatar component')
+    );
+    
+    consoleSpy.mockRestore();
   });

.github/pull_request_template.md (1)

Line range hint 52-64: Consider enhancing the checklist format

The checklist items could be more specific and actionable.

 ### CodeRabbit AI Review
-- [ ] I have reviewed and addressed all critical issues flagged by CodeRabbit AI
-- [ ] I have implemented or provided justification for each non-critical suggestion
-- [ ] I have documented my reasoning in the PR comments where CodeRabbit AI suggestions were not implemented
+- [ ] I have addressed all critical issues (security, performance, bugs) flagged by CodeRabbit AI
+- [ ] I have reviewed and responded to each non-critical suggestion with either:
+  - [ ] Implementation of the suggested changes
+  - [ ] Detailed explanation of why the suggestion was not implemented
+- [ ] I have verified that all implemented suggestions pass the CI checks
 
 ### Test Coverage
-- [ ] I have written tests for all new changes/features
-- [ ] I have verified that test coverage meets or exceeds 95%
-- [ ] I have run the test suite locally and all tests pass
+- [ ] I have added unit tests for all new functions/methods
+- [ ] I have added integration tests for new features where applicable
+- [ ] Test coverage meets or exceeds 95% (run `npm run test:coverage`)
+- [ ] All tests pass locally (`npm run test`)
+- [ ] No regressions in existing functionality

package.json (3)

Line range hint 69-98: Validate test configuration compatibility

The scripts section shows a mix of Jest and Vitest configurations running simultaneously. This could lead to confusion and maintenance overhead.

Consider:

1. Migrating completely to Vitest
2. Removing redundant Jest configurations
3. Updating CI/CD pipelines accordingly

-    "test": "cross-env NODE_ENV=test jest --env=./scripts/custom-test-env.js --watchAll --coverage",
+    "test": "npm run test:vitest",

---

Line range hint 119-160: Review testing library version compatibility

There's a potential version mismatch in testing libraries:

• @testing-library/react at ^16.0.1 (quite old)
• @testing-library/dom at ^10.4.0

Update testing library versions to ensure compatibility:

-    "@testing-library/react": "^16.0.1",
+    "@testing-library/react": "^14.0.0",

---

Line range hint 166-173: Validate resolution constraints

The resolutions field specifies outdated versions:

• @types/react: "17.0.2"
• @types/react-dom: "17.0.2"

These versions are incompatible with React 18. Update to matching versions:

-    "@types/react": "17.0.2",
-    "@types/react-dom": "17.0.2",
+    "@types/react": "^18.0.0",
+    "@types/react-dom": "^18.0.0",

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c2630ae and 16efbdf.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

• package-lock.json is excluded by !**/package-lock.json

📒 Files selected for processing (5)

• .github/pull_request_template.md (1 hunks)
• package.json (2 hunks)
• src/components/Avatar/Avatar.spec.tsx (1 hunks)
• src/components/Avatar/Avatar.tsx (3 hunks)
• vitest.config.ts (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 eslint

vitest.config.ts

[error] 1-2: Delete ⏎

(prettier/prettier)

🔇 Additional comments (7)

src/components/Avatar/Avatar.tsx (1)

67-68: LGTM: Explicit dimension attributes added

Good addition of explicit height and width attributes. This helps prevent layout shifts during image loading.

src/components/Avatar/Avatar.spec.tsx (1)

1-13: LGTM: Well-structured test setup

Good job setting up the test environment with all necessary providers and mocks.

.github/pull_request_template.md (1)

Line range hint 1-16: LGTM: Clear branching strategy documentation

Excellent addition of the branching strategy documentation. The warning about PR submission against the correct branch is clear and prominent.

package.json (2)

Line range hint 1-5: Verify the major version bump implications

The version has been updated from 0.1.0 to 3.0.0, which is a major version change. This suggests breaking changes.

Consider documenting the breaking changes and migration guide in the CHANGELOG.md or README.md.

---

Line range hint 7-67: Review dependency version constraints

Several dependencies have caret (^) version ranges, which could lead to unexpected breaking changes during updates. Critical packages like @apollo/client, react, and typescript should have more restrictive version ranges.

Consider:

1. Using exact versions (remove ^) for critical dependencies
2. Implementing a dependency update strategy
3. Adding package-lock.json to version control

vitest.config.ts (2)

Line range hint 14-34: Validate test setup configuration

The configuration references 'vitest.setup.ts' but its existence needs verification.

Would you like me to help create a template for vitest.setup.ts if it's missing?

✅ Verification successful

The setup file exists and contains the necessary testing library import

The verification confirms that vitest.setup.ts exists and contains the required testing library setup:

import '@testing-library/jest-dom';

The test configuration in vitest.config.ts is properly set up with appropriate coverage exclusions for common patterns like test files, build artifacts, and configuration files.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if setup file exists
test -f vitest.setup.ts && echo "Setup file exists" || echo "Setup file missing"

# Verify coverage exclusions are comprehensive
fd -t f -e ts -e tsx -e js -e jsx . src/ | grep -v "$(cat vitest.config.ts | grep -A 10 exclude | grep -v exclude | tr -d ' ' | tr -d ',')"

Length of output: 486

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if setup file exists and show its content if present
if [ -f vitest.setup.ts ]; then
    echo "Setup file exists:"
    echo "----------------"
    cat vitest.setup.ts
else
    echo "Setup file missing"
fi

# Let's try a different approach to check coverage exclusions
echo -e "\nListing source files:"
echo "----------------"
fd -t f -e ts -e tsx -e js -e jsx . src/ 

Length of output: 27076

🧰 Tools

🪛 eslint

[error] 1-2: Delete ⏎

(prettier/prettier)

---

Line range hint 1-13: Verify node polyfills configuration

The node polyfills plugin is configured to include only 'events'. This might be insufficient if the codebase uses other Node.js built-ins.

Consider expanding the polyfills inclusion based on actual usage in the codebase.

✅ Verification successful

Node polyfills configuration is sufficient for current usage

The codebase only uses Node.js built-ins in setup scripts, test configurations, and development tools, which run in Node.js environment directly. The only Node.js built-in used in the source code that needs polyfilling is 'events', which is already correctly included in the configuration.

• All fs and path usage is in setup scripts and test files
• util imports are only in test setup files
• No usage of other Node.js built-ins like crypto, http, stream, or buffer in the application code

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for Node.js built-in usage
rg -t typescript -t javascript "require\(['\"](?:fs|path|crypto|http|https|stream|buffer|util)" 

Length of output: 134

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for Node.js built-in imports and requires with proper file type options
rg --type js --type ts "(?:import|require)\(['\"](?:fs|path|crypto|http|https|stream|buffer|util|events)"

# Also search for direct imports
rg --type js --type ts "^import .+ from ['\"](?:fs|path|crypto|http|https|stream|buffer|util|events)['\"]"

# Search for any potential Node.js API usage patterns
rg --type js --type ts "(?:createReadStream|createWriteStream|readFileSync|writeFileSync|createHash|createCipher|createServer|Buffer\.|EventEmitter)"

Length of output: 2669

🧰 Tools

🪛 eslint

[error] 1-2: Delete ⏎

(prettier/prettier)

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)

src/components/Avatar/Avatar.test.tsx (2)

Line range hint 1-50: Consider consolidating duplicate test cases with Avatar.spec.tsx

The test cases in this file are duplicated in Avatar.spec.tsx. Consider consolidating the test coverage into a single test file to avoid maintenance overhead and potential inconsistencies.

Move these test cases to Avatar.spec.tsx which already has more comprehensive test coverage including:

• Error handling for undefined names
• Valid/invalid size validation
• Custom URL handling

---

52-52: Remove unnecessary comment

The comment "// test" at the end of the file serves no purpose and should be removed.

-// test

src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts (1)

Line range hint 17-18: Consider externalizing the base64 PDF data

Storing large base64 encoded data directly in the source code makes the file:

• Hard to review and maintain
• Increases bundle size
• Impacts code readability

Consider:

1. Moving the PDF data to a separate asset file
2. Loading it dynamically at runtime
3. Using a CDN or file storage service for the PDF template

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 16efbdf and 7741661.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• src/components/Avatar/Avatar.spec.tsx (1 hunks)
• src/components/Avatar/Avatar.test.tsx (1 hunks)
• src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

src/components/Avatar/Avatar.spec.tsx (1)

1-161: Well-structured and comprehensive test coverage!

The test suite is well organized and provides thorough coverage of the Avatar component's functionality including:

• Basic rendering
• Error handling for undefined names
• Size validation
• Custom URL handling
• Proper mocking of dependencies

The implementation follows testing best practices with clear test descriptions and helper functions for common setup.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.78%. Comparing base (c2630ae) to head (c2465f6).

Additional details and impacted files

@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #2603       +/-   ##
=====================================================
- 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.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)

src/components/Avatar/Avatar.spec.tsx (3)

7-14: Consider enhancing JSDoc documentation

The documentation is well-structured, but could be enhanced with the test environment specification.

Add the following to the JSDoc:

 /**
+ * @jest-environment jsdom
  * Avatar.spec.tsx
  * description:  Test suite for the Avatar component.

---

16-34: Enhance type safety in mock configurations

While the mocks are functional, they could benefit from stronger typing.

Consider adding proper type annotations:

-vi.mock('state/store', () => ({
+interface MockStore {
+  auth: {
+    user: null | unknown;
+    loading: boolean;
+  }
+}
+
+vi.mock('state/store', () => ({
   store: {
-    getState: vi.fn(() => ({
+    getState: vi.fn((): { auth: MockStore['auth'] } => ({
       auth: {
         user: null,
         loading: false,
       },
     })),

---

35-72: Consider expanding test coverage

The current test suite covers basic rendering scenarios, but could be enhanced to provide more comprehensive coverage.

Consider adding test cases for:

1. Edge cases:
   • Empty name handling
   • Invalid size values
   • Missing alt text
2. Accessibility:
   • ARIA attributes
   • Keyboard navigation
3. Integration scenarios:
   • Avatar in different contexts (header, profile, etc.)
   • Loading states
   • Error states

This would align better with the component's usage patterns and ensure robust testing.

🧰 Tools

🪛 GitHub Check: Test Application

[failure] 69-69: src/components/Avatar/Avatar.spec.tsx > Avatar component > renders with custom style and data-testid
AssertionError: expected '' to contain 'custom-avatar-style'

• Expected

• Received

• custom-avatar-style

❯ src/components/Avatar/Avatar.spec.tsx:69:49

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 805521e and b1e8d07.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• src/components/Avatar/Avatar.spec.tsx (1 hunks)
• src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts (2 hunks)

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

• src/components/CheckIn/tagTemplate.ts

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 GitHub Check: Test Application

src/components/Avatar/Avatar.spec.tsx

[failure] 69-69: src/components/Avatar/Avatar.spec.tsx > Avatar component > renders with custom style and data-testid
AssertionError: expected '' to contain 'custom-avatar-style'

• Expected

• Received

• custom-avatar-style

❯ src/components/Avatar/Avatar.spec.tsx:69:49

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)

src/components/EventCalendar/EventCalendar.tsx (1)

Line range hint 50-54: LGTM! Consider adding JSDoc comments.

The Role enum is well-structured and correctly exported. Consider adding JSDoc comments to document the purpose and usage of each role.

+/**
+ * Enum representing user roles for access control.
+ * @enum {string}
+ */
 export enum Role {
+  /** Regular user with basic privileges */
   USER = 'USER',
+  /** Super administrator with full system access */
   SUPERADMIN = 'SUPERADMIN',
+  /** Administrator with organization-level access */
   ADMIN = 'ADMIN',
 }

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 82d94dc and 996b31b.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• src/components/EventCalendar/EventCalendar.test.tsx (2 hunks)
• src/components/EventCalendar/EventCalendar.tsx (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (3)

src/components/EventCalendar/EventCalendar.test.tsx (3)

102-125: LGTM! Well-structured Role enum tests.

The Role enum tests are comprehensive, covering both value verification and practical usage in conditional logic.

---

126-179: LGTM! Thorough month and year navigation tests.

The navigation tests effectively cover edge cases:

• Year transition from January to December
• Regular month transitions
• Year increment/decrement logic

---

181-347: LGTM! Comprehensive date navigation tests with excellent edge case coverage.

The date navigation tests are thorough and well-structured:

• Regular date transitions
• Month transitions
• Year transitions
• Leap year handling
• Special cases for different month lengths (28/29/30/31 days)

[NishantSinghhhhh]

@palisadoes

I am currently working on converting the Jest tests for the Avatar component to Vitest, which I have successfully completed. However, my PR is failing due to Codecov reporting lower test coverage. The report specifically pointed out uncovered parts in the EventCalendar component.
To address this, I started adding tests for the uncovered areas. However, when I ran all the tests, many of them failed across other components on which jest tests were defined, preventing me from passing the tests required for my PR.
Could you advise on the best approach to resolve this situation and ensure the tests pass?
I’m eagerly looking forward to getting my first PR merged into your repository!