#3046 Improve Code Coverage in AddPeopleToTag.tsx

[pranavnathe]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Improve Code Coverage

Issue Number:

Fixes #3046

Snapshots/Videos:

If relevant, did you update the documentation?

Summary
This PR improves the code coverage of the AddPeopleToTag component

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

Have you read the contributing guide?

Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests

  • Enhanced test suite for the Add People to Tag component.
  • Added new test scenarios covering edge cases such as:
    • Handling of empty data.
    • Resetting modal state.
    • Displaying error toasts for non-standard errors.
    • Retaining previous results when fetchMore returns null.
    • Skipping success toast when mutation returns null data.

• Mocks

  • Introduced new mock data structures to support comprehensive testing.
  • Added mock scenarios for various data retrieval and assignment conditions, including empty responses and successful data retrieval.

• Documentation

  • Added detailed documentation for new mock variables to facilitate understanding of their structure and usage.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This pull request focuses on enhancing the test suite for the AddPeopleToTag component by introducing new mock data scenarios and test cases. The changes include adding mock constants to simulate various data retrieval situations, creating a helper function for component rendering, and implementing new test scenarios that cover edge cases such as empty data, error handling, and modal state transitions.

Changes

File	Change Summary
src/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTag.spec.tsx	- Added mock data constants: MOCK_EMPTY, MOCK_NULL_FETCH_MORE, MOCK_NO_DATA, MOCK_NON_ERROR - Introduced renderComponent helper function - Added new test cases for edge scenarios
src/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTagsMocks.ts	- Added mock constants: MOCK_EMPTY, MOCK_NON_ERROR, MOCK_NULL_FETCH_MORE, MOCK_NO_DATA
docs/docs/auto-docs/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTagsMocks/variables/MOCK_EMPTY.md	- Added documentation for MOCK_EMPTY
docs/docs/auto-docs/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTagsMocks/variables/MOCK_NON_ERROR.md	- Added documentation for MOCK_NON_ERROR
docs/docs/auto-docs/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTagsMocks/variables/MOCK_NO_DATA.md	- Added documentation for MOCK_NO_DATA
docs/docs/auto-docs/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTagsMocks/variables/MOCK_NULL_FETCH_MORE.md	- Added documentation for MOCK_NULL_FETCH_MORE

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Improve Code Coverage [#3046]	✅
Remove Code Coverage Bypasses	✅
100% Coverage for Component	✅

Possibly related PRs

• Refactor from jest to vitest #2483 #3140: Vitest transition for test suite, directly related to the modifications made in the main PR.
• Addition test cases added to improve code coverage #3407: Test cases for the MemberDetail component, relevant to overall testing improvements.
• Improves Code Coverage In OrganizationTags.tsx #3031 #3314: Enhancements for the test coverage of the OrganizationTags component, aligning with the main PR's focus.

Suggested labels

refactor, ignore-sensitive-files-pr

Suggested reviewers

• palisadoes

Poem

🐰 In the realm of tests, where rabbits hop with glee,
Mock data dances, coverage sets us free!
Edge cases conquered, no stone left unturned,
A test suite blooming, knowledge freshly learned! 🧪

---

📜 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 dbb15db and 557996b.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• docs/docs/auto-docs/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTagsMocks/variables/MOCK_EMPTY.md (1 hunks)
• docs/docs/auto-docs/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTagsMocks/variables/MOCK_NON_ERROR.md (1 hunks)
• docs/docs/auto-docs/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTagsMocks/variables/MOCK_NO_DATA.md (1 hunks)
• docs/docs/auto-docs/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTagsMocks/variables/MOCK_NULL_FETCH_MORE.md (1 hunks)

✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (3)

• docs/docs/auto-docs/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTagsMocks/variables/MOCK_NULL_FETCH_MORE.md
• docs/docs/auto-docs/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTagsMocks/variables/MOCK_NON_ERROR.md
• docs/docs/auto-docs/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTagsMocks/variables/MOCK_EMPTY.md

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)

• GitHub Check: Test Application
• GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (javascript)

🔇 Additional comments (2)

docs/docs/auto-docs/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTagsMocks/variables/MOCK_NO_DATA.md (2)

1-4: LGTM! Documentation header follows the standard format.

The documentation follows the project's markdown structure with proper navigation links and separators.

---

5-9: Comprehensive mock data structure for testing edge cases.

The MOCK_NO_DATA variable effectively covers various test scenarios:

1. User search with pagination and filters
2. Tag assignment operations
3. Empty data states

This aligns well with the PR's objective of improving test coverage for the AddPeopleToTag component.

Let's verify the implementation matches this documentation:

✅ Verification successful

Documentation accurately reflects the mock data implementation

The implementation in AddPeopleToTagsMocks.ts perfectly matches the documented structure, covering both user search and tag assignment scenarios. The mock is properly utilized in tests to verify component behavior with minimal data.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the mock data implementation and its usage in tests

# Check if the implementation exists at the documented location
rg -A 10 "MOCK_NO_DATA" "src/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTagsMocks.ts"

# Verify usage in test files
rg "MOCK_NO_DATA" "src/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTag.spec.tsx"

Length of output: 512

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Get the complete mock data implementation with more context
rg -A 50 "MOCK_NO_DATA" "src/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTagsMocks.ts"

# Also check the test file for how it's being used
rg -A 5 "MOCK_NO_DATA" "src/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTag.spec.tsx"

Length of output: 1343

---

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.79%. Comparing base (6a4eede) to head (557996b).
Report is 8 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #3411       +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage              7.89%   89.79%   +81.89%     
=====================================================
  Files                   312      334       +22     
  Lines                  8171     8631      +460     
  Branches               1838     1919       +81     
=====================================================
+ Hits                    645     7750     +7105     
+ Misses                 7459      621     -6838     
- Partials                 67      260      +193     

Flag	Coverage Δ
combined	89.79% <100.00%> (?)
jest	6.39% <0.00%> (?)
vitest	89.79% <100.00%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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