Refactor: src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions from Jest to Vitest #2619
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request focuses on migrating test configurations and updating test files to use Vitest, a modern testing framework. The changes include updating the Vitest configuration file, refactoring test suites for various components and screens, and standardizing test methodologies. The modifications aim to improve test consistency, remove unnecessary comments, and align with Vitest's syntax and features. Changes
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yaml 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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 86.10% 86.13% +0.03%
====================================================
Files 295 312 +17
Lines 7259 8134 +875
Branches 1591 1785 +194
====================================================
+ Hits 6250 7006 +756
- Misses 781 956 +175
+ Partials 228 172 -56 ☔ 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 |
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
New Features
Actionscomponent.Bug Fixes
Refactor
Actionscomponent tests from Jest to Vitest.Settingscomponent to follow naming conventions.Tests
OrganizationScreencomponent by removing unnecessary comments.