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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fixes #2640 refactor src/screens/UserPortal/Campaigns #2643

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: develop-postgres
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fixes #2640 refactor src/screens/UserPortal/Campaigns #2643

wants to merge 3 commits into from
+49 −12

Conversation

rafidoth
Copy link

@rafidoth rafidoth commented Dec 12, 2024 •
edited by coderabbitai bot
Loading

What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Refactoring

Issue Number:
#2571
Fixes #

Snapshots/Videos:
test_passed.webm

Summary

  • Renamed Campaigns.test.tsx to Campaigns.spec.tsx
  • Refactored Campaigns test files from Jest to Vitest Syntax

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No

Other information

Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Transitioned testing framework from Jest to Vitest for improved functionality.
    • Updated mocking methods for dependencies to align with Vitest standards.
    • Enhanced documentation with new JSDoc comments in the test file.

@coderabbitai coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 12, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Walkthrough

The pull request updates the test file Campaigns.spec.tsx by transitioning from Jest to Vitest for mocking and testing functionalities. It modifies import statements to use Vitest's methods, adjusts mocking implementations, and updates the cleanup process. Additionally, it introduces new JSDoc comments for better documentation. The core logic of the tests remains unchanged, but the overall structure aligns with Vitest's framework.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
src/screens/UserPortal/Campaigns/Campaigns.spec.tsx Transitioned from Jest to Vitest, updated import statements, modified mocking methods, added JSDoc comments.

Possibly related issues

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

refactor

Suggested reviewers

  • pranshugupta54
  • varshith257

Poem

🐇 In the land of tests, so bright and fair,
We hopped from Jest, with nary a care.
To Vitest we bound, with mocks all anew,
Our tests now sing, in a framework so true!
With comments that guide, like stars in the night,
Our code dances on, in the soft moonlight! 🌙

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0630cff and dddcaab.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/screens/UserPortal/Campaigns/Campaigns.spec.tsx (4 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
src/screens/UserPortal/Campaigns/Campaigns.spec.tsx (1) 
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.
🔇 Additional comments (7)
src/screens/UserPortal/Campaigns/Campaigns.spec.tsx (7)

23-23: LGTM: Vitest imports and react-toastify mock implementation

The migration from Jest to Vitest for imports and the react-toastify mock is correctly implemented.

Also applies to: 30-36

38-46: LGTM: DateTimePicker mock implementation

The async mock implementation for DateTimePicker using vi.importActual is well-structured and follows Vitest best practices.

50-52: LGTM: Added JSDoc comments

The new JSDoc comments improve code documentation and maintainability.

Also applies to: 67-72

109-118: LGTM: useParams mock implementation

The mock implementation for useParams is correctly migrated to Vitest using async import and proper syntax.

122-122: LGTM: Cleanup implementation

The cleanup implementation is correctly migrated from Jest to Vitest.

156-156: LGTM: Unmocking implementation

The unmocking of react-router-dom is correctly implemented using Vitest's syntax.

Line range hint 1-324: Overall migration assessment: Successfully completed

The migration from Jest to Vitest has been completed successfully with:

  • All Jest-specific code properly migrated to Vitest syntax
  • Test logic preserved
  • Improved documentation through JSDoc comments
  • Proper implementation of mocks and cleanup functions

The changes align perfectly with the PR objectives of migrating test files from Jest to Vitest syntax.

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 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 GitHub Actions
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

@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 12, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.78%. Comparing base (0630cff) to head (dddcaab).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #2643       +/-   ##
=====================================================
- Coverage             95.73%   83.78%   -11.95%     
=====================================================
  Files                   295      312       +17     
  Lines                  7036     8118     +1082     
  Branches               1516     1830      +314     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   6736     6802       +66     
- Misses                   99     1178     +1079     
+ Partials                201      138       -63

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

@rafidoth
Copy link
Author

I refactored the Campaign component test file, but it fails during introspection on the talawa-api. How can I fix this? Appreciate your help!

@Cioppolo14
Copy link

@rafidoth Asking the slack channel is a great way to get help for these questions.

@palisadoes palisadoes changed the title Issue 2640 refactor Fixes #2640 refactor Dec 12, 2024
@palisadoes palisadoes changed the title Fixes #2640 refactor Fixes #2640 refactor src/screens/UserPortal/Campaigns Dec 12, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@coderabbitai coderabbitai[bot] coderabbitai[bot] approved these changes

At least 2 approving reviews are required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@rafidoth @Cioppolo14