refactor: jest to vitest of itemUpdateStatusModal : fixes #2557

[bandhan-majumder]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Refactoring

Issue Number:

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 ItemUpdateStatusModal.spec.tsx

Fixes #2557

Snapshots/Videos:

Summary

Refactored the ItemUpdateStatusModal.tsx tests from jest to vitest in ItemUpdateStatusModal.spec.tsx

Have you read the contributing guide?

Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Updated the testing framework from Jest to Vitest for the ItemUpdateStatusModal component.
  • Adjusted mock implementations for success and error notifications.
  • Ensured tests for updating action item statuses and error handling remain intact.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This pull request focuses on refactoring the ItemUpdateStatusModal.spec.tsx test file from Jest to Vitest. The changes involve replacing Jest-specific mocking functions with their Vitest equivalents, such as switching from jest.mock to vi.mock and from jest.fn() to vi.fn(). The modifications are part of a broader effort to migrate the project's test suite to Vitest while maintaining the existing test logic and coverage.

Changes

File	Change Summary
src/screens/OrganizationActionItems/ItemUpdateStatusModal.spec.tsx	Migrated test file from Jest to Vitest, updating mocking functions and syntax

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Replace Jest-specific functions with Vitest equivalents [#2557]	✅
Ensure tests pass using npm run test:vitest [#2557]	❓	Requires full test suite verification
Maintain 100% test coverage [#2557]	❓	Requires coverage report verification

Possibly related issues

• Refactor : src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsUpdateModal.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2491: Similar Vitest migration for AgendaItemsUpdateModal.test.tsx
• Refactor : src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsPreviewModal.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2490: Vitest migration for AgendaItemsPreviewModal.test.tsx
• Refactor : src/components/AgendaItems/AgendaItemsCreateModal.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2489: Vitest migration for AgendaItemsCreateModal.test.tsx
• Refactor: src/screens/UserPortal/Pledges from Jest to Vitest #2577: Vitest migration for src/screens/UserPortal/Pledges

Suggested reviewers

• palisadoes

Poem

🐰 Hopping through the code with glee,
Jest transforms to Vitest, can't you see?
Mocks and functions dance anew,
Testing magic, tried and true!
A rabbit's leap of testing 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 a16e02e and 62ce412.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/screens/OrganizationActionItems/ItemUpdateStatusModal.spec.tsx (4 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Learnings (2)

📓 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.

src/screens/OrganizationActionItems/ItemUpdateStatusModal.spec.tsx (1)

Learnt from: Chaitanya1672
PR: PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-admin#2049
File: src/screens/OrganizationActionItems/ActionItemUpdateModal.tsx:112-138
Timestamp: 2024-11-12T10:40:58.654Z
Learning: The `istanbul ignore next` comments in the `ActionItemUpdateModal.tsx` file were added as part of a commit that introduced tests for the `ActionItemUpdateModal` component. Removing these comments and writing tests to cover the previously ignored lines is recommended to ensure code integrity and improve test coverage.

🔇 Additional comments (2)

src/screens/OrganizationActionItems/ItemUpdateStatusModal.spec.tsx (2)

19-26: LGTM: Correct migration of mock setup to Vitest

The mock setup has been correctly migrated from Jest to Vitest, maintaining the same functionality while using the appropriate Vitest APIs.

---

39-40: LGTM: Consistent migration of mock functions to Vitest

All mock functions in itemProps have been correctly and consistently updated from jest.fn() to vi.fn(), maintaining the same functionality.

Also applies to: 79-80, 152-153

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 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.

[github-actions]

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 86.29%. Comparing base (b1f4903) to head (62ce412).
Report is 7 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                 Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #2714      +/-   ##
====================================================
+ Coverage             86.10%   86.29%   +0.19%     
====================================================
  Files                   295      312      +17     
  Lines                  7259     8134     +875     
  Branches               1591     1785     +194     
====================================================
+ Hits                   6250     7019     +769     
- Misses                  781      943     +162     
+ Partials                228      172      -56     

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