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/OrgContribution component from Jest to Vitest #2729

Merged

Conversation

Akshat76845
Copy link
Contributor

@Akshat76845 Akshat76845 commented Dec 22, 2024

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Refactoring

Issue Number: #2564

There are multiple test files in this directory. So it needs multiple PRs to close the issue. This PR fixes one such file inside that directory OrgContribution.spec.tsx

Fixes #2564

Summary

Refactored the OrgContribution.
Screenshot from 2024-12-23 02-07-33
spec.tsx tests from jest to vitest
Have you read the contributing guide?

Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Updated testing framework from Jest to Vitest.
    • Simplified asynchronous handling in tests.
    • Enhanced mocking of window.location.assign for improved assertion tracking.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 22, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request focuses on refactoring the OrgContribution.spec.tsx test file from Jest to Vitest. The changes involve updating import statements, removing the act wrapper, and modifying how the window.location method is mocked and asserted. The primary goal is to align the test file with Vitest's syntax and features while maintaining the existing test logic and coverage.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/screens/OrgContribution/OrgContribution.spec.tsx - Removed act import from React
- Added Vitest imports (vi, describe, test, expect)
- Simplified wait function by removing act wrapper
- Mocked window.location.assign using vi.fn()
- Updated assertion to check window.location.assign call

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Replace Jest-specific functions with Vitest equivalents [#2564]
Ensure tests pass using npm run test:vitest [#2564] Requires full test suite verification
Maintain 100% test coverage [#2564] Requires coverage report verification

Possibly related issues

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • palisadoes

Poem

🐰 Hop, hop, testing we go,
From Jest to Vitest, watch tests flow!
Mocks and assertions, clean and bright,
Code migration takes flight tonight! 🚀
Refactoring with rabbit delight! 🌟


📜 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 139e985 and df9bdcb.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/screens/OrgContribution/OrgContribution.spec.tsx (3 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.
🔇 Additional comments (5)
src/screens/OrgContribution/OrgContribution.spec.tsx (5)

1-6: LGTM: Imports correctly updated for Vitest

The import statements have been properly updated to use Vitest testing utilities while maintaining other necessary imports.


14-18: LGTM: Wait function properly simplified

The wait function has been correctly simplified by removing the React act wrapper while maintaining the core timeout functionality, which is appropriate for Vitest.


22-27: LGTM: Window location mock properly implemented with Vitest

The window.location mock has been correctly implemented using Vitest's vi.fn() with proper property definition.


49-49: LGTM: Assertion properly updated for Vitest

The assertion has been correctly updated to use Vitest's syntax while maintaining the same test coverage.


Line range hint 1-49: Verify test functionality after migration

The migration from Jest to Vitest has been implemented correctly while maintaining the original test coverage and functionality. Let's verify that all tests pass with the new implementation.

✅ Verification successful

Let me verify one more aspect to ensure the migration is complete by checking for any remaining test-related imports that might need updating.


Jest to Vitest migration is correctly implemented

The verification confirms that:

  • All Jest-specific imports and patterns have been properly replaced with Vitest equivalents
  • Testing utilities from @testing-library/react are correctly maintained
  • No legacy Jest patterns or incompatible testing constructs remain
  • The test structure and assertions are properly migrated using Vitest's describe, test, and expect
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify if there are any remaining Jest dependencies or patterns in the test file
# that might have been missed during the migration.

echo "Checking for any remaining Jest patterns..."
rg -i "jest\.|test\.(only|skip)|describe\.(only|skip)|it\.(only|skip)|beforeAll|afterAll|beforeEach|afterEach" "src/screens/OrgContribution/OrgContribution.spec.tsx"

echo "Checking for act imports or usage..."
rg "import.*act.*from.*react(-dom)?(-test-utils)?|act\(" "src/screens/OrgContribution/OrgContribution.spec.tsx"

Length of output: 484


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check all imports to ensure they're correctly migrated to Vitest
rg "^import.*from" "src/screens/OrgContribution/OrgContribution.spec.tsx"

# Also verify the testing utilities being used are compatible with Vitest
rg "render|fireEvent|screen|waitFor|within" "src/screens/OrgContribution/OrgContribution.spec.tsx"

Length of output: 847


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

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

codecov bot commented Dec 22, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 86.35%. Comparing base (139e985) to head (df9bdcb).
Report is 11 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                 Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #2729      +/-   ##
====================================================
+ Coverage             79.58%   86.35%   +6.76%     
====================================================
  Files                   295      312      +17     
  Lines                  7274     8134     +860     
  Branches               1592     1785     +193     
====================================================
+ Hits                   5789     7024    +1235     
+ Misses                 1222      933     -289     
+ Partials                263      177      -86     

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

@Akshat76845 Akshat76845 changed the title Vitesttt Refactor : src/screens/OrgContribution/OrgContribution.spec.tsx from Jest to Vitest Dec 22, 2024
@Akshat76845 Akshat76845 changed the title Refactor : src/screens/OrgContribution/OrgContribution.spec.tsx from Jest to Vitest Refactor : src/screens/OrgContribution component from Jest to Vitest Dec 22, 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.

2 participants