Refactored src/components/GroupChatDetails from jest to vitest #3453
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@varshith257 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 16 minutes and 29 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
WalkthroughThe pull request focuses on refactoring the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
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
|
|
@varshith257 should I make changes in the global coverage of the jest config file? |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (5)
src/components/GroupChatDetails/GroupChatDetails.spec.tsx (5)
Line range hint
1-19: Optimize test imports for better performance.Consider using
@testing-library/react/purefor testing utilities to improve performance and reduce bundle size.-import { - render, - screen, - act, - fireEvent, - waitFor, -} from '@testing-library/react'; +import { render, screen, act } from '@testing-library/react'; +import { fireEvent, waitFor } from '@testing-library/react/pure';
Line range hint
485-492: Consider reducing waitFor timeout and using better assertions.The current implementation uses a high timeout (5000ms) which could mask potential issues and make tests slower. Consider:
- Reducing the timeout
- Using more specific assertions
await waitFor( async () => { expect(await screen.findByTestId('editTitleBtn')).toBeInTheDocument(); }, - { timeout: 5000 }, + { timeout: 1000 }, );
Line range hint
547-554: Consider reducing waitFor timeout and using better assertions.Similar to the previous test, consider reducing the timeout and using more specific assertions to improve test reliability.
await waitFor( async () => { expect(await screen.findByTestId('user')).toBeInTheDocument(); }, - { timeout: 5000 }, + { timeout: 1000 }, );
Line range hint
591-599: Consider using modern file input testing practices.The current implementation using
Object.definePropertycould be replaced with a more modern approach using theFileAPI andDataTransfer.- const fileInput = screen.getByTestId('fileInput'); - const smallFile = new File(['small-file-content'], 'small-file.jpg'); - Object.defineProperty(fileInput, 'files', { - value: [smallFile], - }); - fireEvent.change(fileInput); + const file = new File(['small-file-content'], 'small-file.jpg', { type: 'image/jpeg' }); + const dataTransfer = new DataTransfer(); + dataTransfer.items.add(file); + const fileInput = screen.getByTestId('fileInput'); + fireEvent.change(fileInput, { target: { files: dataTransfer.files }});
Line range hint
433-600: Consider organizing tests using describe blocks for better structure.The test suite could benefit from organizing related tests under describe blocks for better readability and maintenance.
describe('GroupChatDetails', () => { + describe('Rendering', () => { it('renders correctly', async () => { // ... existing test }); + }); + + describe('Chat Title Operations', () => { it('edit chat title', async () => { // ... existing test }); + }); + + describe('User Management', () => { it('add user to group chat', async () => { // ... existing test }); + }); + + describe('Image Operations', () => { it('update group chat image', async () => { // ... existing test }); + }); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/components/GroupChatDetails/GroupChatDetails.spec.tsx(5 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/components/GroupChatDetails/GroupChatDetails.spec.tsx (4)
434-437: LGTM! Correct migration to Vitest mocks.The migration from
jest.fn()tovi.fn()is implemented correctly.
458-461: LGTM! Correct migration to Vitest mocks.The migration from
jest.fn()tovi.fn()is implemented correctly.
520-523: LGTM! Correct migration to Vitest mocks.The migration from
jest.fn()tovi.fn()is implemented correctly.
567-570: LGTM! Correct migration to Vitest mocks.The migration from
jest.fn()tovi.fn()is implemented correctly.
|
@syedali237 I think there still 7 test suites i guess from workflow jest exisits can you refactor completely them too and we will remove jest from workflow and adjust vitest here |
|
@varshith257 this would be the last test file. I'll just make changes in the jest.config.js, and this should completely migrate our test cases from jest to vitest. Or should I just remove this file as the failing check indicates no tests found? |
|
Yes we need to remove all files related to jest and remove it instances in workflows |
varshith257
added
the
ignore-sensitive-files-pr
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop-postgres #3453 +/- ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage 1.90% 88.57% +86.66%
=====================================================
Files 316 338 +22
Lines 8249 8620 +371
Branches 1880 1918 +38
=====================================================
+ Hits 157 7635 +7478
+ Misses 8083 655 -7428
- Partials 9 330 +321 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
I think I should remove these two as well:
|
|
Yes, remove it and change upload coverage strp files to |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/pull-request.yml(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
📓 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.
🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)
.github/workflows/pull-request.yml
258-258: input "gcov_ignore" is not defined in action "codecov/codecov-action@v4". available inputs are "codecov_yml_path", "commit_parent", "directory", "disable_file_fixes", "disable_safe_directory", "disable_search", "dry_run", "env_vars", "exclude", "fail_ci_if_error", "file", "files", "flags", "git_service", "handle_no_reports_found", "job_code", "name", "network_filter", "network_prefix", "os", "override_branch", "override_build", "override_build_url", "override_commit", "override_pr", "plugin", "plugins", "report_code", "root_dir", "slug", "token", "url", "use_legacy_upload_endpoint", "use_oidc", "verbose", "version", "working-directory"
(action)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Test Application
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/pull-request.yml (1)
259-259: Verify the coverage file path.Please verify that the coverage file path
./coverage/vitest/lcov.infois correct after the migration from Jest to Vitest.Run the following script to verify the coverage file location:
✅ Verification successful
Coverage file path is correctly configured ✅
The path
./coverage/vitest/lcov.infoin the workflow file matches exactly with the Vitest configuration:
reportsDirectory: './coverage/vitest'is set in vitest.config.ts- LCOV reporter is configured in the coverage settings
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the Vitest coverage file exists at the specified location # Test: Check if the coverage file exists if [ -f "./coverage/vitest/lcov.info" ]; then echo "Coverage file exists at the expected location" exit 0 else echo "Coverage file not found at ./coverage/vitest/lcov.info" echo "Please verify the correct path in the workflow configuration" exit 1 fiLength of output: 299
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for Vitest config files and package.json echo "=== Searching for Vitest config files ===" fd -e js -e ts -e json "vitest.config|vite.config" echo -e "\n=== Checking package.json for coverage scripts ===" if [ -f "package.json" ]; then jq '.scripts | with_entries(select(.key | contains("coverage") or contains("test")))' package.json fi echo -e "\n=== Checking .gitignore for coverage patterns ===" if [ -f ".gitignore" ]; then grep -i "coverage" .gitignore fi echo -e "\n=== Examining Vitest config content ===" for config in $(fd -e js -e ts -e json "vitest.config|vite.config"); do echo -e "\nContent of $config:" cat "$config" doneLength of output: 3108
|
@palisadoes With this our refactoring is done |
palisadoes
merged commit 0445cb8
into
PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres
|
Merged. Thanks for your oversight |
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Refactoring
Issue Number:
Fixes #3445
Snapshots/Videos:
N/A
If relevant, did you update the documentation?
No
Summary
Migrated test case from jest to vitest
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No
Checklist
CodeRabbit AI Review
Test Coverage
Other information
N/A
Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes
Summary by CodeRabbit