Refactored & removed instances of jest in scripts

[syedali237]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Refactorung

Issue Number:

Fixes #3525

Snapshots/Videos:

N/A

If relevant, did you update the documentation?

No

Summary

Refactored & removed instances of jest in scripts folder.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

No

Checklist

CodeRabbit AI Review

• I have reviewed and addressed all critical issues flagged by CodeRabbit AI
• I have implemented or provided justification for each non-critical suggestion
• I have documented my reasoning in the PR comments where CodeRabbit AI suggestions were not implemented

Test Coverage

• I have written tests for all new changes/features
• I have verified that test coverage meets or exceeds 95%
• I have run the test suite locally and all tests pass

Other information

the docs were generated during the commit.

Have you read the contributing guide?

Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation

  • Revised documentation to update internal function reference points and remove outdated styling explanations.

• Tests

  • Migrated testing mocks to a new framework for improved consistency.
  • Updated testing setup to utilize new mocking and timer utilities.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request updates documentation and mock functionality. In the docs, the function definition locations in the OrgList and OrganizationModal components have been revised with adjusted line numbers, and the OrgList documentation has been streamlined by removing CSS strategy details. In addition, the mocks for the Dicebear modules have been updated to replace Jest’s jest.fn() with Vitest’s vi.fn(), refactoring the testing framework integration.

Changes

File(s)	Change Summary
docs/.../OrgList/functions/default.md docs/.../OrganizationModal/functions/default.md	Updated the reported function definition location (OrgList: line 56 → 68; OrganizationModal: line 64 → 65). The OrgList file additionally had the CSS strategy explanation removed.
docs/.../OrganizationModal/interfaces/InterfaceOrganizationModalProps.md	Adjusted line numbers for multiple interface properties and methods to reflect documentation reorganization.
scripts/__mocks__/@dicebear/collection.ts scripts/__mocks__/@dicebear/core.ts	Replaced Jest’s jest.fn() with Vitest’s vi.fn() in the mocking functions.
src/setupTests.ts	Updated global fetch mock and timer management to use Vitest's vi instead of Jest.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Replace Jest-specific functions and mocks with Vitest equivalents (#3525)	❌	The changes update Dicebear mocks but do not address the specific file scripts/__mocks__/@pdfme/generator.test.ts.
Rename the test file suffix from .test.* to .spec.* (#3525)	❌	No renaming of any test file suffix is included in this PR.
Ensure all tests pass after migration using npm run test:vitest (#3525)	❌	There are no modifications to the test file or test cases in @pdfme/generator.test.ts.
Maintain 100% test coverage for the file after migration (#3525)	❌	The PR does not include any changes aimed at maintaining or verifying test coverage for the specified file.

Suggested reviewers

• palisadoes

Poem

I’m a rabbit with a gleam in my eye,
Hopping through docs as the changes fly.
Line numbers shift, mocks now shine,
Jest has bowed, Vitest’s in line.
Celebrate the code with a twitch of my nose—happy days arise!
🐰🌟

---

📜 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 b8a308e and bf5a8c3.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/setupTests.ts (2 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• src/setupTests.ts

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)

• GitHub Check: Test Application

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 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.

[github-actions]

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

[coderabbitai]

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 735869e and b3b6229.

📒 Files selected for processing (5)

• docs/docs/auto-docs/screens/OrgList/OrgList/functions/default.md (1 hunks)
• docs/docs/auto-docs/screens/OrgList/OrganizationModal/functions/default.md (1 hunks)
• docs/docs/auto-docs/screens/OrgList/OrganizationModal/interfaces/InterfaceOrganizationModalProps.md (7 hunks)
• scripts/__mocks__/@dicebear/collection.ts (1 hunks)
• scripts/__mocks__/@dicebear/core.ts (1 hunks)

✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (4)

• scripts/mocks/@dicebear/collection.ts
• docs/docs/auto-docs/screens/OrgList/OrganizationModal/functions/default.md
• docs/docs/auto-docs/screens/OrgList/OrgList/functions/default.md
• docs/docs/auto-docs/screens/OrgList/OrganizationModal/interfaces/InterfaceOrganizationModalProps.md

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)

• GitHub Check: Test Application

🔇 Additional comments (1)

scripts/__mocks__/@dicebear/core.ts (1)

1-1: LGTM! Correct import for Vitest mocking.

The import statement correctly brings in the Vitest mocking functionality, aligning with the PR's objective to remove Jest.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.61%. Comparing base (735869e) to head (bf5a8c3).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/setupTests.ts	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
scripts/__mocks__/@dicebear/core.ts	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
scripts/__mocks__/@dicebear/collection.ts	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                 Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #3526      +/-   ##
====================================================
- Coverage             88.65%   88.61%   -0.04%     
====================================================
  Files                   341      341              
  Lines                  8626     8627       +1     
  Branches               1925     1925              
====================================================
- Hits                   7647     7645       -2     
- Misses                  635      638       +3     
  Partials                344      344              

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

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 2

📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b3b6229 and b8a308e.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/setupTests.ts (2 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)

• GitHub Check: Test Application

🔇 Additional comments (1)

src/setupTests.ts (1)

1-5: Verify the Jest dependencies after migration to Vitest.

The file still uses Jest-specific packages (@testing-library/jest-dom and jest-preview) while migrating to Vitest. This mixed usage might lead to conflicts or unexpected behavior.

Run this script to check for Vitest-compatible alternatives:

Also applies to: 21-21, 30-33