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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Refactor: src/App.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #3002

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 28, 2024
Merged

Refactor: src/App.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #3002

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 28, 2024

Conversation

raggettii
Copy link
Contributor

@raggettii raggettii commented Dec 28, 2024 •
edited by coderabbitai bot
Loading

What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Refactoring

Issue Number:

Fixes #2762

Did you add tests for your changes?
Yes

Snapshots/Videos:
All the tests are passing
(https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b1dd5927-664f-4519-a453-17e0794b1978)

Code coverage is also 100%
(https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/3bcaab2d-3fa9-4f3a-8543-aeac4c75382a)

If relevant, did you update the documentation?

Summary

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

Other information

Have you read the contributing guide?

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Refactor

    • Removed commented-out code related to user authentication and local storage management
    • Disabled route for leaving an organization

  • Tests

    • Migrated test suite from Jest to Vitest
    • Updated test assertions and mocking strategies
    • Simplified asynchronous testing approach

@coderabbitai coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 28, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Walkthrough

This pull request focuses on refactoring the src/App.spec.tsx test file from Jest to Vitest. The changes involve updating import statements, mocking strategies, and test syntax to align with Vitest's framework. Key modifications include replacing Jest-specific functions with Vitest equivalents, simplifying the wait function, and updating test assertions to use Vitest's syntax.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/App.spec.tsx - Replaced Jest imports with Vitest imports
- Transitioned from jest.mock to vi.mock
- Simplified wait function by removing act wrapper
- Updated test cases from test to it
- Modified navigation and location assertion methods
src/App.tsx - Commented out user authentication and local storage related code
- Removed useLocalStorage import and method
- Disabled CHECK_AUTH query and related useEffect
- Commented out LeaveOrganization route

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Replace Jest-specific functions with Vitest equivalents [#2762] ✅
Rename test file to .spec.* suffix [#2762] ✅
Maintain 100% test coverage [#2762] ❓ Coverage verification not visible in the diff

Possibly related issues

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • palisadoes

Poem

🐰 A Jest to Vitest leap,
Code dancing light and neat,
Mocks transformed with glee,
Testing now runs free and fleet,
Rabbit's testing jubilee! 🧪

📜 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 c9292d1 and a888a5e.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/App.spec.tsx (3 hunks)
  • src/App.tsx (3 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (2)
📓 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.
src/App.spec.tsx (1) 
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.
🔇 Additional comments (10)
src/App.spec.tsx (6)

7-7: Seamless migration to Vitest imports.
Replacing Jest imports with Vitest imports is fitting for this refactor, ensuring we adhere to Vitest’s syntax and functions.

14-18: Correct usage of vi.mock for mocking components.
This transition from jest.mock to vi.mock aligns perfectly with Vitest’s mocking capabilities.

20-24: Consistency in mocking SVG assets with vi.mock.
Maintaining a single convention (vi.mock) is beneficial for consistent test code.

64-65: Async wait function is compatible with Vitest.
No issues found; the promise-based delay is fine for test scenarios that need a short wait.

70-70: Replacing test with it for clarity.
Vitest supports both test and it; using it here is a stylistic choice that promotes natural-language test descriptions.

85-87: Pathname check and window.history.pushState usage.
Using window.history.pushState and asserting window.location.pathname is an appropriate pattern under Vitest.

src/App.tsx (4)

33-33: Commented-out code.
No suggestions. The code change is out of scope for this test refactor, so let’s leave it as-is.

50-50: Commented-out code for useLocalStorage.
No further action needed here since it’s unrelated to the Vitest migration.

95-95: Commented-out code referencing CHECK_AUTH.
No issues to flag for the Vitest transition.

97-108: Commented-out code within useEffect.
No additional refactoring needed pertinent to the testing framework migration.

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.

@github-actions GitHub Actions
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

@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 28, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.21%. Comparing base (c9292d1) to head (a888a5e).
Report is 4 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #3002       +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage             31.32%   89.21%   +57.88%     
=====================================================
  Files                   299      320       +21     
  Lines                  7429     8278      +849     
  Branches               1624     1868      +244     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   2327     7385     +5058     
+ Misses                 4897      666     -4231     
- Partials                205      227       +22

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

@raggettii
Copy link
Contributor Author

@palisadoes Review

@palisadoes palisadoes merged commit 9dbd7a6 into PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres Dec 28, 2024
14 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@palisadoes palisadoes palisadoes approved these changes

@coderabbitai coderabbitai[bot] coderabbitai[bot] approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@raggettii @palisadoes