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

Improve Code Coverage in src/components/UserPortal/CommentCard/CommentCard.tsx #3093

Conversation

vivekbisen04
Copy link

@vivekbisen04 vivekbisen04 commented Dec 31, 2024

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Improve Code Coverage in src/components/UserPortal/CommentCard/CommentCard.tsx. #3066

Issue Number:

Fixes #3066

Did you add tests for your changes?

Yes

Snapshots/Videos:

Screenshot from 2024-12-31 16-08-46

If relevant, did you update the documentation?

No

Summary
This PR Improve Code Coverage in src/screens/OrgSettings/OrgSetting.tsx. Key changes include:

  • All sections of the file are covered by tests.
  • Code coverage for the file reaches 100%.
  • Remove any /* istanbul ignore */ or equivalent statements that bypass code coverage reporting, unless absolutely necessary.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

No

Other information

Have you read the contributing guide?

Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes

    • Improved error handling for comment liking and unliking functionality
    • Enhanced validation of GraphQL mutation responses
  • Tests

    • Added comprehensive unit tests for CommentCard component
    • Implemented test cases for various comment interaction scenarios
    • Added error notification and loading state tests

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 31, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request focuses on improving the test coverage and error handling for the CommentCard component. The changes involve updating the unit tests in CommentCard.spec.tsx to include more comprehensive test scenarios for liking and unliking comments. The implementation in CommentCard.tsx is modified to enhance response validation for GraphQL mutations, ensuring that state updates and callback functions are only triggered when mutations return the expected data structure.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/components/UserPortal/CommentCard/CommentCard.spec.tsx Added comprehensive test cases for like/unlike mutations, including error handling, loading states, and successful scenarios
src/components/UserPortal/CommentCard/CommentCard.tsx Enhanced mutation response validation in handleToggleLike function to check for specific data structure before updating state

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Improve Code Coverage [#3066]
Create/Update Test Cases
Remove Coverage Bypass Statements No explicit removal of coverage bypass statements observed

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • varshith257
  • palisadoes

Poem

🐰 In the realm of code, a rabbit's delight,
Tests now shine with coverage so bright!
Comments like and unlike, with grace they flow,
Errors caught, mutations in perfect glow 🌟
A test suite blooming, robust and clean! 🧪


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 (2)
src/components/UserPortal/CommentCard/CommentCard.tsx (2)

87-91: Use optional chaining for safety and clarity.

Instead of the series of chained conditionals, consider using optional chaining for improved readability:

- if (data && data.unlikeComment && data.unlikeComment._id) {
+ if (data?.unlikeComment?._id) {
    setLikes((likes) => likes - 1);
    setIsLikedByUser(false);
    props.handleDislikeComment(props.id);
}
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)

[error] 87-87: Change to an optional chain.

Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.

(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)


102-106: Use optional chaining for the ‘likeComment’ checks.

To keep the code consistent and more concise, you can utilize optional chaining here as well:

- if (data && data.likeComment && data.likeComment._id) {
+ if (data?.likeComment?._id) {
    setLikes((likes) => likes + 1);
    setIsLikedByUser(true);
    props.handleLikeComment(props.id);
}
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)

[error] 103-103: Change to an optional chain.

Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.

(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)

📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6349f3f and a349b1b.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/components/UserPortal/CommentCard/CommentCard.spec.tsx (4 hunks)
  • src/components/UserPortal/CommentCard/CommentCard.tsx (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
src/components/UserPortal/CommentCard/CommentCard.tsx

[error] 87-87: Change to an optional chain.

Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.

(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)


[error] 103-103: Change to an optional chain.

Unsafe fix: Change to an optional chain.

(lint/complexity/useOptionalChain)

🔇 Additional comments (12)
src/components/UserPortal/CommentCard/CommentCard.spec.tsx (12)

15-15: Successful use of react-toastify for error notifications.

The import of toast from 'react-toastify' enables clear, user-friendly error messaging. Good job adding it to the tests.


30-35: Mocking ‘react-toastify’ is correctly implemented.

Mocking out the toast.error function is effective for verifying calls. No issues found.


77-90: Well-organized default props.

This defaultProps object promotes consistency in test cases, reducing code repetition.


97-100: Clearing mocks before each test is best practice.

Resetting mocks ensures test independence and reliability. Good approach.


278-310: Comprehensive error handling test for the like mutation.

The test correctly verifies error display and confirms that the handler is not called. Great use of toast.error validation.


312-343: Thorough error handling test for the unlike mutation.

Again, excellent approach to verifying both the error notification and ensuring the callback isn’t triggered.


345-384: Success path coverage for liking a comment.

This test robustly verifies state updates, callback invocation, and UI changes under successful conditions.


386-425: Success path coverage for unliking a comment.

Similarly robust. Ensures the handler gets the correct comment ID and the UI updates properly.


427-473: Verification of loading states.

This test ensures visual feedback (Hourglass icon) appears while the mutation is in progress, then switches to the liked icon. Nicely done.


475-510: Logical check for absent data from the mutation result.

The test confirms no state changes or callbacks occur when data is null, preventing UI inconsistencies.


512-553: Ensuring no updates if ‘unlikeComment’ response is null.

This check covers an edge case where the mutation returns a null field. Excellent thoroughness.


555-596: Verifying no updates when ‘likeComment’ response is null.

Completes the edge-case coverage, confirming the like callback isn’t called, and likes remain unchanged. Great test completeness.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 31, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.12%. Comparing base (6349f3f) to head (a349b1b).
Report is 2 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #3093       +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage             26.39%   89.12%   +62.72%     
=====================================================
  Files                   301      322       +21     
  Lines                  7588     8421      +833     
  Branches               1657     1897      +240     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   2003     7505     +5502     
+ Misses                 5454      676     -4778     
- Partials                131      240      +109     

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

@palisadoes palisadoes merged commit f190f74 into PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres Dec 31, 2024
15 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