Increased code coverage in src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnStore.spec.tsx #3154
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request focuses on enhancing the test suite for the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Suggested labels
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: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnStore/AddOnStore.spec.tsx (3)
Line range hint
301-319: Consider validating the actual loading indicator.
Currently, this test named "renders loader while loading" only asserts that the component (AddOnEntryStore) is rendered but doesn't explicitly verify a loader or "loading" text. To ensure full coverage of the loading state, consider adding a direct assertion for the loader/spinner element.
320-363: Enhance coverage by verifying additional plugin details.
This test correctly checks that "Plugin 1" appears twice. To further improve coverage, consider verifying other elements like the plugin description or creator, ensuring the UI correctly renders all relevant data.
460-480: Fix grammatical error in message text.
The message "Plugin does not exists" contains a grammatical error. Replace it with "Plugin does not exist."- const elements = screen.getAllByText('Plugin does not exists'); + const elements = screen.getAllByText('Plugin does not exist');
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnStore/AddOnStore.spec.tsx(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnStore/AddOnStore.spec.tsx (2)
364-411: Logic for installed tab looks good.
Switching to the "Installed" tab and verifying "Plugin 2" is displayed twice appears correct. This test effectively covers the tab-switch scenario.
412-459: Search functionality tests are comprehensive.
The test confirms that "Test Plugin" is displayed when searching for "Test," which meets the coverage objective. It's well-structured and accurately checks the filter logic.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop-postgres #3154 +/- ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage 20.10% 89.66% +69.56%
=====================================================
Files 301 322 +21
Lines 7685 8451 +766
Branches 1678 1841 +163
=====================================================
+ Hits 1545 7578 +6033
+ Misses 6044 645 -5399
- Partials 96 228 +132 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnStore/AddOnStore.spec.tsx (3)
301-307: Clarify the loading state expectations.
Currently, the test only checks for the presence ofAddOnEntryStore. If you intend to confirm that a dedicated loading spinner or message is displayed while the component is fetching data, consider including an assertion that explicitly verifies the loading indicator’s presence or text.
316-316: Enhance simulated loading behavior.
Rather than a simple comment that says “Simulate loading state,” make the test logic clearer by verifying that no plugin data is yet present while loading is in progress.
364-410: Add an assertion that confirms the active tab state.
While you do correctly verify the presence of installed plugins, it might help coverage to assert that the “Installed” tab is now active or highlighted, ensuring your UI correctly reflects the tab switch.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnStore/AddOnStore.spec.tsx(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnStore/AddOnStore.spec.tsx (2)
320-362: Confirm the count of displayed plugin labels.
This test expects two instances of "Plugin 1" on the screen. Ensure that the duplication is intentional (e.g., repeated listing or an item plus a detail kit). If it isn’t necessary, modify the test or the UI to avoid confusion.
481-537: Uncomment or expand dropdown interaction (Previously discussed).
This portion of the test is commented out due to an unwanted error, but reintroducing the “Disabled” selection step would ensure coverage of theshowEnabledtoggle scenario. If you still aim to test the full dropdown behavior, consider investigating that error or mocking any needed dependencies.
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (5)
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnStore/AddOnStore.spec.tsx (5)
Line range hint
301-319: Consider verifying the actual loader content
Right now, this test only checks for the presence of “AddOnEntryStore” in the DOM during loading. It may be more meaningful to verify that a specific spinner, text, or placeholder is truly visible on the screen (e.g. “Loading…”). This additional check helps ensure the real loading indicator is rendered.
320-363: Verify additional plugin details for thorough coverage
The test confirms that “Plugin 1” is rendered twice, but it might be beneficial to also verify properties like its description or creator. This ensures that the plugin is rendered with all expected fields.
364-411: Validate the absence of installed plugins on the ‘Available’ tab
Switching to “Installed” confirms that “Plugin 2” appears. Consider further strengthening this test by confirming that “Plugin 2” is not displayed under the “Available” tab, ensuring the tabs reliably separate installed and available plugins.
412-459: Consider expanding the search coverage
Currently, only basic search functionality is tested. Consider covering scenarios like case-insensitive searches or partial matches to ensure the search logic is thoroughly validated.
460-480: Correct the grammar in the displayed message
“Plugin does not exists” is grammatically incorrect. Change it to something like “Plugin does not exist” or “No matching plugins found.”- const message = screen.getAllByText('Plugin does not exists'); + const message = screen.getAllByText('Plugin does not exist');
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnStore/AddOnStore.spec.tsx(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnStore/AddOnStore.spec.tsx (1)
481-537: Revisit the commented-out step if you want to test ‘Disabled’ state
This line is still commented out, mirroring a past suggestion to fully simulate the dropdown states. If you want to confirm that switching to “Disabled” updates the UI, consider addressing the error encountered when uncommenting this line or adding a separate test for that scenario.
palisadoes
merged commit 97cb069
into
PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Increase Code Coverage.
Issue Number:
Fixes #3045
Did you add tests for your changes?
Yes
Snapshots/Videos:
If relevant, did you update the documentation?
Summary
**Increased Code Coverage from 93%, branch coverage to 84%. **
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No
Other information
N/A
Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes
Summary by CodeRabbit