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

Improve Code Coverage in src\components\RecurrenceOptions\CustomRecurrenceModal.tsx #3510

Merged

Conversation

gitsofaryan
Copy link

@gitsofaryan gitsofaryan commented Feb 1, 2025

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Improve Code Coverage in src\components\RecurrenceOptions\CustomRecurrenceModal.tsx

Issue Number:

Fixes #3057

Snapshots/Videos:

image
image

If relevant, did you update the documentation?

No

Summary

  • All sections of the file are covered by tests.
  • Improved code coverage for CustomRecurrenceModal.tsx.

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?

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests

    • Added a new test case for handling invalid/null end date values in recurrence settings.
  • Refactor

    • Simplified the handleDayClick function in CustomRecurrenceModal by removing the nullish coalescing operator when updating weekDays.
    • Removed a comment related to test coverage from the onChange handler for the DatePicker component.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 1, 2025

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces a new test case in the CustomRecurrence.spec.tsx file to validate handling of invalid or null end date values in recurrence settings. Additionally, a minor modification was made to the handleDayClick function in CustomRecurrenceModal.tsx, simplifying the way week days are added to the state by removing the nullish coalescing operator.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/components/RecurrenceOptions/CustomRecurrence.spec.tsx Added new test case for handling invalid/null end date values
src/components/RecurrenceOptions/CustomRecurrenceModal.tsx Simplified handleDayClick function by removing nullish coalescing operator and removed comment for Istanbul ignore

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Improve Code Coverage [#3057]

Possibly related issues

Suggested reviewers

  • palisadoes

Poem

🐰 A rabbit's tale of code so bright,
Tests dancing with null's delight,
Week days added, state so clean,
Coverage climbing, a testing scene!
Hop, hop, hooray for code's new might! 🧪


📜 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 40a84ea and abe0a0e.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/components/RecurrenceOptions/CustomRecurrenceModal.tsx (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • src/components/RecurrenceOptions/CustomRecurrenceModal.tsx
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
  • GitHub Check: Test Application
  • GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (javascript)

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.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 1, 2025

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
Contributor

@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 comments (1)
src/components/RecurrenceOptions/CustomRecurrenceModal.tsx (1)

Line range hint 380-380: Remove the istanbul ignore next comment.

The pipeline failure indicates presence of a code coverage disable statement. The /* istanbul ignore next */ comment at line 380 should be removed as the new test case in CustomRecurrence.spec.tsx now covers this code path.

🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: PR Workflow

[error] File contains code coverage disable statement. Please remove it and add the appropriate tests.

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
src/components/RecurrenceOptions/CustomRecurrence.spec.tsx (1)

388-388: Improve test description for clarity.

The test description could be more specific about what behavior it's testing. Consider renaming it to something like: "Should handle null/invalid end date values without changing state".

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 16e1632 and 40a84ea.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/components/RecurrenceOptions/CustomRecurrence.spec.tsx (1 hunks)
  • src/components/RecurrenceOptions/CustomRecurrenceModal.tsx (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Actions: PR Workflow
src/components/RecurrenceOptions/CustomRecurrenceModal.tsx

[error] File contains code coverage disable statement. Please remove it and add the appropriate tests.

🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/components/RecurrenceOptions/CustomRecurrenceModal.tsx (1)

135-135: LGTM! Safe to remove the nullish coalescing operator.

The removal of ?? is safe as weekDays will always be defined at this point due to the condition check at line 134.

🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: PR Workflow

[error] File contains code coverage disable statement. Please remove it and add the appropriate tests.

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot previously approved these changes Feb 1, 2025
@palisadoes
Copy link
Contributor

Please fix the failing tests

@gitsofaryan
Copy link
Author

Working on it.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 2, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.64%. Comparing base (73cf8cd) to head (abe0a0e).
Report is 27 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #3510       +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage              1.90%   88.64%   +86.74%     
=====================================================
  Files                   316      341       +25     
  Lines                  8249     8625      +376     
  Branches               1880     1924       +44     
=====================================================
+ Hits                    157     7646     +7489     
+ Misses                 8083      637     -7446     
- Partials                  9      342      +333     

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

@gitsofaryan
Copy link
Author

@palisadoes Please review changes LGTM.

@palisadoes palisadoes merged commit f2e1077 into PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres Feb 4, 2025
19 checks passed
@gitsofaryan
Copy link
Author

thankyou @palisadoes

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.

2 participants