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.

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

Refactor : src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal from Jest to Vitest #2489 #2727

Merged

Conversation

Ramneet04
Copy link
Contributor

@Ramneet04 Ramneet04 commented Dec 22, 2024

Refactored src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.test.tsx to src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx

Issue: #2489 : #2489

Changes Implemented:

Refactored the testing framework from Jest to Vitest in AgendaItemsCreateModal.test.tsx.
Updated import statements, mocking methods, and assertions to align with Vitest conventions.
Verified compatibility with the existing codebase using Vitest.

migrateIssue

Other information
I have read the previous refactor PR and tried to keep things as uniform as possible.
Please suggest any other changes if required.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Transitioned testing framework from Jest to Vitest for improved mocking and testing utilities.
    • Enhanced testing capabilities with updated mock function declarations and import statements.
    • Maintained existing test structure and logic, ensuring consistent functionality and behavior verification for the AgendaItemsCreateModal component.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 22, 2024

Walkthrough

This pull request focuses on migrating the test file AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx from Jest to Vitest. The changes involve replacing Jest-specific mocking and testing functions with their Vitest equivalents. The core testing logic remains unchanged, ensuring that the component's behavior is still thoroughly tested across various scenarios like rendering, form state updates, and error handling.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx - Replaced jest.fn() with vi.fn() for mock functions
- Replaced jest.mock() with vi.mock() for module mocking
- Updated import statements to use Vitest testing utilities

Possibly related issues

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • palisadoes

Poem

🐰 In the realm of tests, a rabbit's delight,
Jest to Vitest, a migration so bright!
Mock functions dance, with vi they sing,
Refactoring code on a testing wing! 🧪
Hop, hop, hurray for cleaner test suites! 🚀


📜 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 3a2dc11 and 8311f6c.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx (3 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx

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. (Beta)
  • @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.

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

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 139e985 and 7372ebd.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx (3 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
📓 Common learnings
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.
🪛 GitHub Check: Performs linting, formatting, type-checking, checking for different source and target branch
src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx

[failure] 77-77:
Cannot find namespace 'vi'.

🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx (3)

23-24: LGTM: Correct test framework imports

The imports for jest-dom and Vitest functions are properly configured for the migration.


34-36: LGTM: Proper migration of mock functions

Mock functions have been correctly migrated from jest.fn() to vi.fn().


70-75: LGTM: Proper migration of react-toastify mock

The mock for react-toastify has been correctly migrated to use Vitest's mocking functionality.

src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Cioppolo14
Copy link
Contributor

@Ramneet04 Please fix the first comment so that each issue listed automatically closes. The PR_GUIDELINES.md file has details.

Please address the coderabbit comments and fix the failed tests.

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot previously approved these changes Dec 22, 2024
@palisadoes
Copy link
Contributor

Please fix the failing test and ensure that CodeRabbit.ai approves your PR

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 36a504b and 027936d.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx (3 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
📓 Common learnings
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.
🪛 eslint
src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx

[error] 78-78: import() type annotations are forbidden.

(@typescript-eslint/consistent-type-imports)

🪛 GitHub Check: Performs linting, formatting, type-checking, checking for different source and target branch
src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx

[failure] 78-78:
import() type annotations are forbidden

🔇 Additional comments (5)
src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx (5)

23-23: Recommended usage note regarding jest-dom library.

Although the package is named "@testing-library/jest-dom," it is compatible with Vitest. This is fine and fully supported. Just be aware that this nomenclature can sometimes confuse contributors; consider clarifying or documenting that it works seamlessly with Vitest if needed.


24-24: Correct usage of vitest imports.

Good job replacing Jest's APIs with the corresponding Vitest functions.


34-36: Proper mocking with vi.fn().

These mock functions correctly replace jest.fn() calls. Everything looks consistent and aligned with Vitest’s mocking approach.


70-73: Vitest-based mocking of react-toastify.

The mock implementation and usage of vi.fn() with react-toastify appear correct and should work as expected.


76-76: Mocking external modules with vi.mock.

The call to vi.mock('utils/convertToBase64'); is correctly placed and consistent with Vitest's mocking approach.

src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 23, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 87.08%. Comparing base (86d59c2) to head (8311f6c).
Report is 3 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #2727       +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage             75.56%   87.08%   +11.52%     
=====================================================
  Files                   295      312       +17     
  Lines                  7289     8148      +859     
  Branches               1593     1840      +247     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   5508     7096     +1588     
+ Misses                 1518      875      -643     
+ Partials                263      177       -86     

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

@Ramneet04
Copy link
Contributor Author

hey @palisadoes could you please assist me like why this one failed, I have correct the technical error but don't know this one.
@codecov
codecov/project — 87.08% (-5.16%) compared to debe672

@palisadoes
Copy link
Contributor

Please ensure that coderabbit.ai approves your changes. The error may be corrected after that.

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot previously approved these changes Dec 23, 2024
@Ramneet04
Copy link
Contributor Author

Finally!! Is there anything or is it resolved??

Copy link
Contributor

@palisadoes palisadoes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See comment

src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.spec.tsx Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Ramneet04 Ramneet04 requested a review from palisadoes December 23, 2024 19:15
@palisadoes palisadoes merged commit df2dd67 into PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres Dec 23, 2024
13 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants