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

Refactor: src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.test.tsx from jest to vitest (Fixes #2568) #2592

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: develop-postgres
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dev-mayanktiwari
Copy link

@dev-mayanktiwari dev-mayanktiwari commented Dec 2, 2024

geNotFound.test.tsx from jest to vitest (Issue #2568)

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Refactoring

Issue Number:

Fixes #2568

Did you add tests for your changes?

Yes

Snapshots/Videos:

Screenshot 2024-12-03 at 2 05 12 AM

If relevant, did you update the documentation?

Not Required

Summary

Updated src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.test.tsx from jest to vitest

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

No

Other information

Have you read the contributing guide?

Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Updated the test suite for the PageNotFound component to verify rendering for different user roles: "User" and "ADMIN or SUPERADMIN".
    • Improved test structure by removing unnecessary setup for admin roles and ensuring proper context during rendering.

geNotFound.test.tsx from jest to vitest (Issue PalisadoesFoundation#2568)
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 2, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request refactors the test file PageNotFound.spec.tsx to transition from the Jest testing framework to Vitest. It modifies the test structure to include two tests that validate the rendering of the PageNotFound component for different user roles, specifically "User" and "ADMIN or SUPERADMIN". The changes also involve the removal of a commented-out line related to local storage for admin roles and ensure that the component is tested under the correct context using necessary providers.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx Imported describe, test, and expect from Vitest; added tests for user roles; removed commented code.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Replace Jest-specific functions and mocks with Vitest equivalents (#2568)
Ensure all tests pass after migration using npm run test:vitest (#2568)
Maintain the test coverage for the file as 100% after migration (#2568)

Possibly related issues

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

refactor

Suggested reviewers

  • pranshugupta54
  • varshith257

Poem

In the land of code where rabbits play,
We’ve shifted our tests to a brighter day.
With Vitest now hopping along,
Our PageNotFound sings a new song!
Roles defined, tests all in line,
Hooray for the changes, our code will shine! 🐇✨


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 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

github-actions bot commented Dec 2, 2024

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

@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

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx (4)

11-11: LGTM! Consider importing additional Vitest utilities

The Vitest imports look good. However, consider importing additional useful Vitest utilities like beforeEach, afterEach, or vi for mocking if needed in future test cases.

-import { describe, test, expect } from 'vitest';
+import { describe, test, expect, beforeEach, afterEach, vi } from 'vitest';

Line range hint 15-32: Consider adding cleanup between tests

The test structure looks good, but it's important to ensure proper cleanup between tests, especially when dealing with rendered components.

Add cleanup in a beforeEach/afterEach block:

+import { cleanup } from '@testing-library/react';
+
 describe('Testing Page not found component', () => {
+  afterEach(() => {
+    cleanup();
+  });
+
   test('Component should be rendered properly for User', () => {

Line range hint 34-59: Ensure localStorage cleanup after admin role test

The test correctly sets up the admin context, but we should clean up the localStorage after the test to prevent affecting other tests.

Add cleanup for localStorage:

 describe('Testing Page not found component', () => {
+  afterEach(() => {
+    cleanup();
+    localStorage.clear();
+  });

   test('Component should be rendered properly for ADMIN or SUPERADMIN', () => {

42-42: Remove unnecessary empty line

The empty line between the localStorage setup and render call is not needed.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c2630ae and 7c2b9a8.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
  • package-lock.json is excluded by !**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx (2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx (1)

Line range hint 1-59: Verify test coverage and migration completeness

The migration to Vitest appears complete, but let's verify:

  1. All Jest-specific functions have been replaced
  2. Test coverage remains at 100%
✅ Verification successful

Migration to Vitest is complete and properly implemented

The verification shows:

  • All test assertions use Vitest's expect imported directly from 'vitest'
  • No Jest-specific functions or patterns remain in the test file
  • Test coverage appears comprehensive with cases for both user roles
  • Both Vitest and Jest config files exist in the project, suggesting an ongoing migration process, but this specific file is fully migrated
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any remaining Jest dependencies and verify test coverage

# Check for any remaining Jest-specific code
rg -i "jest\." src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx
rg -i "jest" src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx

# Look for common Jest-specific patterns that might need migration
rg -i "beforeAll|afterAll|beforeEach|afterEach" src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx

Length of output: 220


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify test coverage and migration completeness with a broader search

# Check for any test-related imports and assertions
rg -A 1 "import.*test|expect|assert|mock|spy" src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.spec.tsx

# Check test coverage report if available
fd -g "coverage*" -t f

# Look for any potential test configuration files
fd -g "vitest.config*"
fd -g "jest.config*"

# Check if there are any other test files in the same directory that might need migration
fd -g "*.spec.*" -g "*.test.*" src/screens/PageNotFound/

Length of output: 1050

@palisadoes palisadoes changed the title Refactor: src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.test.tsx from jest to vitest (Issue #2568) Refactor: src/screens/PageNotFound/PageNotFound.test.tsx from jest to vitest (Fixes #2568) Dec 2, 2024
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.

1 participant