Refactored src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2568 #2590
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces updates to the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
Our Pull Request Approval ProcessThanks for contributing! Testing Your CodeRemember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:
Our policies make our code better. ReviewersDo not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
Reviewing Your CodeYour reviewer(s) will have the following roles:
CONTRIBUTING.mdRead our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:
Other
|
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Congratulations on making your first PR! 🎊 If you haven't already, check out our Contributing Guidelines and PR Reporting Guidelines to ensure that you are following our guidelines for contributing and creating PR.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx (1)
Line range hint
15-41: Consider adding cleanup between testsWhile the first test case looks good, it's recommended to clear any localStorage values between tests to prevent potential interference. Consider adding a cleanup step.
describe('Testing Page not found component', () => { + afterEach(() => { + // Clear localStorage between tests + localStorage.clear(); + }); test('Component should be rendered properly for User', () => {
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
package.json(2 hunks)src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx(2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx (2)
11-11: LGTM: Vitest imports correctly added
The migration to Vitest imports looks correct. The test structure maintains compatibility with the new testing framework while preserving the existing test cases.
Line range hint 42-60: Verify test isolation and coverage
The test cases appropriately verify different user scenarios and component text elements. However, let's verify the test coverage remains at 100% as specified in the PR objectives.
✅ Verification successful
Test coverage is complete and properly isolated
The test suite comprehensively covers all code paths and rendering scenarios of the PageNotFound component:
- Tests both user scenarios (regular user and admin) by manipulating the AdminFor localStorage value
- Verifies all rendered text elements including the conditional ones (Talawa User vs Talawa Admin Portal)
- Checks the presence of the 404 message, error text, and navigation button
- Validates the component's behavior with proper test isolation using BrowserRouter, Redux Provider, and i18n setup
The test implementation matches the component's functionality completely, with no uncovered code paths.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify test coverage for PageNotFound component
# Expected: Coverage should be 100%
# Run Vitest coverage for this specific file
npx vitest run src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx --coverage
Length of output: 168
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's analyze the test file and component to verify test coverage manually
# First, let's see the component implementation
cat src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.tsx
# Then, let's see the test file
cat src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx
Length of output: 4278
package.json (1)
26-26: Verify @testing-library/dom compatibility
The addition of @testing-library/dom is appropriate for the test migration. However, let's verify there are no conflicts with other testing libraries.
✅ Verification successful
No compatibility issues with @testing-library/dom
The codebase already uses the Testing Library ecosystem extensively with @testing-library/react and @testing-library/jest-dom in devDependencies. The addition of @testing-library/dom v10.4.0 is compatible with the existing testing setup, as evidenced by:
- Extensive usage of Testing Library in 100+ test files
- Compatible versions: React Testing Library v16.0.1 and Jest DOM v6.6.3
- No conflicting peer dependencies found
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential conflicts between testing libraries
# Expected: No dependency conflicts
# Check for peer dependency conflicts
npm ls @testing-library/dom @testing-library/react @testing-library/jest-dom 2>/dev/null || true
Length of output: 136
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the actual package.json content to see testing library dependencies
cat package.json | jq '.dependencies, .devDependencies' 2>/dev/null
# Also check if there are any existing testing library imports in the codebase
rg --type js --type ts "@testing-library/(dom|react|jest-dom)" -l
Length of output: 13904
| @@ -156,7 +157,7 @@ | |||
| "sass": "^1.80.7", | |||
| "tsx": "^4.19.1", | |||
| "vite-plugin-svgr": "^4.2.0", | |||
| "vitest": "^2.1.5", | |||
| "vitest": "^2.1.8", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review dependency version downgrades
There are concerning version downgrades in the resolutions:
- @apollo/client from ^3.11.8 to ^3.4.0-beta.19
- @types/react from ^18.3.12 to 17.0.2
- graphql from ^16.9.0 to ^16.5.0
These downgrades might introduce compatibility issues or miss important bug fixes.
Please provide justification for these downgrades or consider maintaining the newer versions.
Also applies to: 164-167
|
There isn’t an issue assigned to you for this PR. Please follow the guidelines in our PR_GUIDELINES.md file. We have the procedures in place so that everyone has a fair chance of contributing. I will be closing this pull request. Please follow the procedures and resubmit when ready. |
dev-mayanktiwari
deleted the
refactor/2568-jest_to_vitest_pagenotfound
branch
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Refactoring
Issue Number:
Fixes #2568
Did you add tests for your changes?
Yes
Snapshots/Videos:
If relevant, did you update the documentation?
Not required
Summary
Refactored src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information
Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
PageNotFoundcomponent to ensure proper rendering for different user roles.Chores