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

migrate errorHandler tests from Jest to Vitest #2927

Conversation

Dhiren-Mhatre
Copy link
Contributor

@Dhiren-Mhatre Dhiren-Mhatre commented Dec 26, 2024

What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Refactor: Migration from Jest to Vitest for error handler test files

Issue Number:
Fixes #2758

Did you add tests for your changes?
Yes. The migrated tests maintain 100% coverage and all tests are passing.

Snapshots/Videos:

Screencast.from.2024-12-26.18-27-08.mp4

If relevant, did you update the documentation?
N/A - This is a test file migration

Summary
This PR migrates error handler test files from Jest to Vitest as part of our ongoing migration to Vitest.

Key changes:

  • Migrated error handler test files to Vitest syntax
  • Renamed test files to follow .spec.ts convention
  • Replaced Jest-specific functions with Vitest equivalents
  • Added proper TypeScript interfaces where needed
  • Maintained 100% test coverage

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No

Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Enhanced unit tests for the Organization Dashboard component, improving comment clarity and simplifying assertions.
    • Introduced comprehensive unit tests for the errorHandler function, covering various error scenarios and edge cases.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 26, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces modifications to two test files: OrganizationDashboard.spec.tsx and errorHandler.spec.tsx. The changes primarily focus on refactoring the test cases from Jest to Vitest, improving test clarity, and enhancing error handling test coverage. The modifications include updating comments, simplifying assertions, and establishing comprehensive testing scenarios for the error handler utility.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/screens/OrganizationDashboard/OrganizationDashboard.spec.tsx Refined test case comments and simplified upcoming events matcher
src/utils/errorHandler.spec.tsx Added comprehensive unit tests for error handling, introduced TFunction type alias

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Refactor from Jest to Vitest [#2758]
Rename test file to .spec.* suffix [#2758]
Ensure tests pass using npm run test:vitest [#2758] Requires actual test run verification
Maintain 100% test coverage [#2758] Requires coverage report confirmation

Possibly related issues

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • palisadoes
  • varshith257

Poem

🐰 Hop, hop, testing we go!
From Jest to Vitest, watch our code grow
Error handlers dance, tests shine bright
Refactoring magic takes flight tonight
CodeRabbit's leap of testing delight! 🧪


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: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/utils/errorHandler.spec.tsx (1)

20-20: Consider removing or refining this debug log.

Printing within tests can clutter test output and isn't typically necessary unless troubleshooting. If the log is strictly needed, consider a more controlled approach (e.g., debug-level logging) or remove it to keep the test logs clean.

-      console.log(`options are passed, but the function returns only ${key}`);
+      // Consider removing the console.log or replacing with a debug-level log if truly needed.
📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1475df0 and af39987.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/screens/OrganizationDashboard/OrganizationDashboard.spec.tsx (2 hunks)
  • src/utils/errorHandler.spec.tsx (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/utils/errorHandler.spec.tsx (2)

1-2: Use of a type alias for TFunction is suitable.

This type alias is a clear and concise way to represent the translation function signature.


13-104: Overall test coverage and clarity are excellent.

The usage of test.each and custom logic to handle different error patterns is thorough. The mocking approach for toast.error is implemented correctly, and the parameterized tests ensure multiple edge cases are covered effectively.

src/screens/OrganizationDashboard/OrganizationDashboard.spec.tsx (2)

150-150: Improved clarity in wait message.

Renaming the comment to "First wait for the dashboard to fully load" clarifies the intent and flow of the test.


163-163: Comment encourages flexible assertion technique.

Changing the comment to "Use a more flexible matcher" indicates better clarity in the test approach.

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot previously approved these changes Dec 26, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 26, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.13%. Comparing base (13f16b9) to head (adf8797).
Report is 4 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #2927       +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage             49.48%   88.13%   +38.64%     
=====================================================
  Files                   299      316       +17     
  Lines                  7414     8265      +851     
  Branches               1621     1810      +189     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   3669     7284     +3615     
+ Misses                 3499      770     -2729     
+ Partials                246      211       -35     

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

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.

You haven't deleted the orginal test file as requested

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 comments on editing

  • src/screens/OrganizationDashboard/OrganizationDashboard.spec.tsx

@palisadoes palisadoes merged commit a630a91 into PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres Dec 26, 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.

2 participants