Refactor: src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions from Jest to Vitest #2619
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request includes updates to the configuration files for testing frameworks, specifically Changes
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
Our Pull Request Approval ProcessThanks for contributing! Testing Your CodeRemember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:
Our policies make our code better. ReviewersDo not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
Reviewing Your CodeYour reviewer(s) will have the following roles:
CONTRIBUTING.mdRead our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:
Other
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
.eslintrc.json (1)
Line range hint
8-14: Update ESLint extends array for VitestThe configuration still extends Jest recommended configs. For consistency with the Vitest migration:
Update the extends array:
"extends": [ "plugin:react/recommended", "eslint:recommended", - "plugin:jest/recommended", + "plugin:vitest/recommended", "plugin:prettier/recommended", "plugin:@typescript-eslint/recommended", "eslint-config-prettier", "prettier" ],vitest.config.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-24: Consider completing Jest removalWhile the Vitest configuration is properly set up, there are still Jest-related configurations in the project. To complete the migration:
- Remove Jest-related dependencies from package.json
- Update any remaining Jest ESLint plugins and rules
- Update CI/CD configurations if they reference Jest
- Consider updating documentation to reflect the migration to Vitest
src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.test.tsx (1)
112-118: Approve with suggestions for test optimizationThe migration to Vitest with
waitForis well-implemented and maintains test coverage. However, consider these optimizations:
- Combine related assertions within single
waitForblocks to reduce test execution time:- await waitFor(async () => { - const searchInput = await screen.findByTestId('searchBy'); - expect(searchInput).toBeInTheDocument(); - }); - await waitFor(async () => { - const assigneeName = await screen.findAllByTestId('assigneeName'); - expect(assigneeName[0]).toHaveTextContent('Teresa Bradley'); - }); + await waitFor(async () => { + const searchInput = await screen.findByTestId('searchBy'); + const assigneeName = await screen.findAllByTestId('assigneeName'); + expect(searchInput).toBeInTheDocument(); + expect(assigneeName[0]).toHaveTextContent('Teresa Bradley'); + });
- Consider extracting the debounce wait time to a constant:
const DEBOUNCE_WAIT_MS = 300;
- Make waitFor conditions more specific by using exact text matches where possible:
- await waitFor(() => { - expect(screen.getByText(t.actionItemDetails)).toBeInTheDocument(); - }); + await waitFor( + () => { + expect(screen.getByText(t.actionItemDetails)).toBeInTheDocument(); + }, + { + timeout: 2000, + interval: 100 + } + );Also applies to: 123-149, 154-173, 178-197, 223-226, 236-239
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
.eslintrc.json(1 hunks)package.json(2 hunks)src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.test.tsx(5 hunks)vitest.config.ts(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
package.json (1)
139-139: LGTM: Vitest ESLint plugins are properly configured
The addition of Vitest-related ESLint plugins (@vitest/eslint-plugin, eslint-plugin-vitest, eslint-plugin-vitest-globals) is appropriate for the migration from Jest to Vitest.
Also applies to: 149-150
vitest.config.ts (1)
15-15: LGTM: Test file pattern correctly configured
The test file pattern ['src/**/*.{test,spec}.{js,jsx,ts,tsx}'] appropriately includes both .test and .spec files, which is good for maintaining compatibility with different naming conventions during the migration.
src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.test.tsx (2)
18-18: LGTM: Proper migration of test setup to Vitest
The migration from Jest to Vitest follows the correct patterns:
- Imports are properly updated to use Vitest
- Mocking implementation maintains the same functionality
- Cleanup is correctly handled with
vi.restoreAllMocks()
Also applies to: 68-74, 82-82
Line range hint 1-241: Verify test coverage is maintained after migration
The test suite appears comprehensive, covering all key functionality. Let's verify the coverage metrics are maintained after the migration.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the test coverage configuration and implementation.
Let me check the actual test implementation to verify the coverage completeness.
Let me fix the command syntax and try again.
Based on the test implementation analysis, I can now provide the final response:
Test coverage appears complete and well-maintained
The test suite comprehensively covers:
- Component initialization and rendering
- Error handling and fallback scenarios
- User interactions (sorting, searching)
- Modal operations (open/close)
- Empty state handling
- Event handlers (openModal, closeModal)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify test coverage for the Actions component
# Note: This assumes the coverage report is generated in the standard location
# Search for coverage configuration
echo "Searching for coverage configuration..."
fd -t f -e json -e js -e ts "vitest.config"
# Search for previous coverage reports to compare
echo "Searching for previous coverage reports..."
fd -t f "coverage-summary.json"
Length of output: 276
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the vitest configuration for coverage settings
echo "Checking vitest configuration..."
cat vitest.config.ts
# Look for test coverage thresholds or related configuration
echo -e "\nSearching for coverage threshold configurations..."
rg -i "coverage|threshold" vitest.config.ts
# Check if there are any other test configuration files
echo -e "\nSearching for other test configurations..."
fd -t f -e js -e ts -e json "test.*config"
Length of output: 1404
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the Actions component implementation to compare with test coverage
echo "Checking Actions component implementation..."
ast-grep --pattern 'export default function Actions' -f src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.tsx
# Look for any untested event handlers or callbacks
echo -e "\nSearching for event handlers and callbacks..."
rg "const.*=.*=>" src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.tsx -A 2
# Check for conditional renders that might need testing
echo -e "\nSearching for conditional renders..."
rg "if.*\(.*\).*{|switch.*\(.*\).*{|\?.*:" src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.tsx
Length of output: 1132
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the Actions component implementation
echo "Checking Actions component implementation..."
ast-grep --pattern 'export default function Actions' src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.tsx
# Look for conditional renders with fixed regex
echo -e "\nSearching for conditional renders..."
rg "if \(.*\) {|switch \(.*\) {|\? .*:" src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.tsx
# Check test file for coverage of all handlers
echo -e "\nComparing handlers coverage..."
rg "it\(.*\)" src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.test.tsx -A 1
Length of output: 1495
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop-postgres #2619 +/- ##
=====================================================
- Coverage 95.73% 83.92% -11.82%
=====================================================
Files 295 310 +15
Lines 7036 8105 +1069
Branches 1516 1830 +314
=====================================================
+ Hits 6736 6802 +66
- Misses 99 1164 +1065
+ Partials 201 139 -62 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
@MayankJha014 You have to fix the test coverage by following codecav's recommendation. |
|
Also follow changes recommended by code rabbit to improve code quality. |
|
Please make code rabbit approves your changes |
…ation/talawa-admin into action-jest-to-vitest
…14/talawa-admin into action-jest-to-vitest
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx (3)
79-85: Consider simplifying the mock implementationWhile the mock works, it could be simplified for better maintainability.
Consider this simpler implementation:
- vi.mock('react-router-dom', async () => { - const actual = await vi.importActual('react-router-dom'); - return { - ...actual, - useNavigate: vi.fn(() => () => {}), - }; - }); + vi.mock('react-router-dom', () => ({ + ...vi.importActual('react-router-dom'), + useNavigate: () => vi.fn(), + }));Also applies to: 93-93
123-129: Standardize async/await usage with waitForThere's inconsistency in how async/await is used with waitFor across different test cases. Some use async callbacks while others don't.
Standardize the pattern across all tests. Prefer:
await waitFor(() => { // synchronous expectations });Instead of:
await waitFor(async () => { const element = await screen.findByTestId('...'); // expectations });This makes the code more predictable and easier to maintain.
Also applies to: 165-184, 189-208
134-160: Enhance sorting test assertionsWhile the test covers basic sorting functionality, it could be more thorough.
Consider adding these assertions:
// Verify the sort button state expect(sortBtn).toHaveAttribute('aria-expanded', 'true'); // Verify multiple items are sorted correctly const assigneeNames = await screen.findAllByTestId('assigneeName'); expect(assigneeNames).toHaveLength(expectedLength); assigneeNames.forEach((name, index) => { expectElementToHaveTextContent(name, expectedSortedNames[index]); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
.eslintrc.json(0 hunks)package.json(2 hunks)src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx(6 hunks)vitest.config.ts(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- .eslintrc.json
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- vitest.config.ts
🔇 Additional comments (3)
package.json (1)
139-139: LGTM: Appropriate Vitest linting dependencies added
The addition of @vitest/eslint-plugin and eslint-plugin-vitest is correct for proper linting support with Vitest.
Also applies to: 149-149
src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx (2)
18-18: LGTM: Well-structured utility functions for assertions
The utility functions expectVitestToBeInTheDocument and expectElementToHaveTextContent improve code maintainability by encapsulating common assertions.
Also applies to: 44-53
220-224: LGTM: Adequate error handling coverage
The error handling test cases appropriately verify that error messages are displayed when API calls fail.
|
@palisadoes Sir Please check repo is there any changes required |
|
Fix the failing tests @MayankJha014 . Else the PR won't get merged |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx (2)
51-60: Consider removing unnecessary utility functions.These utility functions add an extra layer of abstraction without providing significant benefits:
- They wrap simple assertions that are already readable
- They make debugging more difficult by adding an extra stack frame
- They don't enhance the testing patterns significantly
Consider using direct assertions instead:
// Instead of: expectVitestToBeInTheDocument(element); expectElementToHaveTextContent(element, text); // Use: expect(element).toBeInTheDocument(); expect(element).toHaveTextContent(text);
Line range hint
1-262: Consider restructuring tests for better organization and maintainability.While the migration to Vitest is successful, consider these architectural improvements:
- Group related tests using nested
describeblocks- Extract common setup code into shared fixtures
- Add error boundary testing
- Add snapshot tests for complex UI states
Example structure:
describe('Actions Component', () => { describe('Initialization', () => { // URL params tests // Loading state tests // Error boundary tests }); describe('Data Display', () => { // Rendering tests // Snapshot tests }); describe('User Interactions', () => { describe('Sorting', () => { // Sorting tests }); describe('Search', () => { // Search tests }); describe('Modals', () => { // Modal tests }); }); });
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx (1)
Migration to Vitest is incomplete - Jest dependencies still present
While the test file itself has been migrated to use Vitest syntax, the project still contains Jest dependencies and configuration:
- Found Jest-related dependencies in package.json:
jest,babel-jest,@testing-library/jest-dom,jest-preview, etc.- Test script still uses Jest:
"test": "cross-env NODE_ENV=test jest --env=./scripts/custom-test-env.js"- Jest ESLint plugin:
eslint-plugin-jest- Test setup files that may contain Jest configuration are present:
src/setupTests.tsThe test file migration should be accompanied by:
- Updating package.json to remove Jest dependencies
- Migrating test scripts to use Vitest
- Updating test setup files for Vitest
- Removing Jest-specific ESLint configurations
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-261: Verify complete removal of Jest dependenciesThe migration to Vitest appears complete, but let's verify no Jest-specific code remains.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining Jest-specific code or dependencies # Search for Jest-specific patterns echo "Checking for Jest-specific patterns..." rg -i 'jest\.' src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx rg -i 'jest\(' src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx rg -i '\.jest' src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx # Verify test runner configuration echo "Checking test configuration..." rg -l 'jest\.config' .Length of output: 407
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's perform a more comprehensive check for Jest-related code # Check for Jest-related imports and dependencies echo "Checking for Jest-related imports..." rg -i "from ['|\"]@?jest" src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx # Check for common Jest assertions and methods echo "Checking for Jest assertions..." rg -i "expect\.(.*)(toBe|toEqual|toMatch|toContain|toHaveBeenCalled)" src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx # Check package.json for Jest dependencies echo "Checking package.json for Jest dependencies..." if [ -f "package.json" ]; then cat package.json | grep -i "jest" fi # Check for any remaining test setup files that might contain Jest configuration echo "Checking for test setup files..." fd -t f "(setup|config).*test" .Length of output: 1159
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx(7 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx (2)
Learnt from: bitbard3
PR: PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-admin#2588
File: src/components/ChangeLanguageDropdown/ChangeLanguageDropdown.spec.tsx:145-155
Timestamp: 2024-12-02T04:20:11.745Z
Learning: In PRs focused solely on refactoring test cases from Jest to Vitest, avoid suggesting optimizations or changes outside the migration scope.
Learnt from: adithyanotfound
PR: PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-admin#2482
File: src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.spec.tsx:1-8
Timestamp: 2024-11-27T06:37:47.871Z
Learning: In the Talawa-Admin project, the `@testing-library/jest-dom` package is imported globally in `vitest.setup.ts`, so individual test files do not need to import it separately.
🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx (4)
25-25: LGTM: Vitest imports correctly added
The necessary Vitest test runners and utilities have been properly imported.
50-61: LGTM: Well-structured test utilities
The mock navigation and utility functions are properly implemented:
mockNavigateuses Vitest'svi.fn()- Utility functions standardize common assertions
87-93: LGTM: Proper test suite setup with Vitest
The test suite setup correctly:
- Uses Vitest's module mocking approach
- Preserves actual router implementation while mocking navigation
- Includes proper cleanup with
vi.restoreAllMocks()
Also applies to: 101-101
131-137: LGTM: Test assertions properly migrated
All test assertions have been successfully migrated to Vitest:
- Consistent use of utility functions for assertions
- Proper async handling with waitFor
- Maintains original test coverage and behavior
Also applies to: 142-168, 173-192, 197-216, 223-224, 232-232, 242-245, 255-258
|
@varshith257 Please review. Some sensitive files were edited that you should investigate |
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
This PR migrates the test cases in src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions from Jest to Vitest, ensuring compatibility with Vitest and maintaining 100% test coverage.
Checklist:
src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/ActionsJest test cases to Vitest.Issue Number:
#2586
Screencast.from.2024-12-06.06-40-40.webm
Summary by CodeRabbit