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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

[REFACTOR]: Jest to Vitest migration for askForCustomPort.test.ts #2867

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 25, 2024
Merged

[REFACTOR]: Jest to Vitest migration for askForCustomPort.test.ts #2867

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 25, 2024

Conversation

hustlernik
Copy link
Contributor

@hustlernik hustlernik commented Dec 25, 2024 •
edited by coderabbitai bot
Loading

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

This PR migrates the test cases in src/setup/askForCustomPort.test.ts from Jest to Vitest, ensuring compatibility with Vitest .

✅ Replace Jest-specific functions and mocks with Vitest equivalents
✅ Ensure all tests in src/setup/askForCustomPort.test.ts from Jest to Vitest.pass after migration using npm run test:vitest
✅ Maintain the test coverage for the file as 100% after migration
✅ Upload a video or photo for this specific file coverage is 100% in the PR description

Issue Number:

Fixes #2748

Did you add tests for your changes?

No

Snapshots/Videos:

image

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

No

Have you read the contributing guide?

Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Chores
    • Transitioned testing framework from Jest to Vitest for improved performance.
    • Updated test cases to utilize Vitest syntax while preserving existing functionality.

@coderabbitai coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 25, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Walkthrough

The pull request involves migrating the test file src/setup/askForCustomPort/askForCustomPort.spec.ts from Jest to Vitest. This transition includes updating import statements, replacing Jest-specific mocking functions with Vitest equivalents, and ensuring the test structure and assertions remain consistent. The changes are part of a broader effort to standardize the testing framework across the project.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/setup/askForCustomPort/askForCustomPort.spec.ts Migrated from Jest to Vitest, replacing jest imports and mocking functions with Vitest equivalents

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Replace Jest-specific functions with Vitest equivalents [#2748] ✅
Rename test file from .test.* to .spec.* [#2748] ✅
Ensure tests pass using npm run test:vitest [#2748] ❓ Requires actual test run verification
Maintain 100% test coverage [#2748] ❓ Requires coverage report verification

Possibly related issues

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • palisadoes

Poem

🐰 A Rabbit's Ode to Vitest Migration 🧪

From Jest to Vitest, tests take flight,
Mocks and imports now shine so bright,
Code transforms with graceful ease,
Refactoring brings developer's peace!

Hop, hop, hurray for clean test suite! 🚀

Tip

CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command @coderabbitai generate docstrings to have CodeRabbit automatically generate docstrings for your pull request. We would love to hear your feedback on Discord.

📜 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 471f113 and 09c0f74.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/setup/askForCustomPort/askForCustomPort.spec.ts (4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (18)
src/setup/askForCustomPort/askForCustomPort.spec.ts (18)

1-1: Successful framework migration import.
Importing the Vitest test functions and hooks (describe, it, expect, vi, beforeEach) is correctly done here.

5-5: Good use of Vitest mocking.
Replacing jest.mock('inquirer') with vi.mock('inquirer') is the correct approach for Vitest.

9-9: Resetting mocks with vi.clearAllMocks().
Ensuring a clean test environment before each test run helps avoid cross-test interference and preserves test isolation.

13-13: Clarity in test description.
The test name correctly conveys which behavior is validated: returning a default port when no input is provided.

14-16: Appropriate use of vi.spyOn with mockResolvedValueOnce.
Mocking the user input flow with Vitest’s vi.spyOn aligns well with inquirer-based prompts. This ensures test realism.

22-22: Clear test naming for user-provided port scenario.
The test effectively describes the expected outcome when a custom port is entered by the user.

23-25: Correct mocking structure for simpler test flow.
Chaining mockResolvedValueOnce calls is straightforward for simulating distinct input states.

31-31: Comprehensive validation checks.
Validating ports outside the range [1, 65535] with straightforward error messaging improves usability and reliability.

45-45: Contextual test naming for retry mechanism.
Indicating the invalid input scenario and subsequent prompt is valuable for future maintainers.

46-46: Accurate multi-step mock for re-prompting.
Simulating multiple prompt outcomes in sequence demonstrates a robust test of the retry path.

54-54: Good coverage of maximum retry case.
Explicitly testing repeated invalid input ensures edge cases are handled gracefully.

55-55: Chained mocks ensure thorough scenario coverage.
Mocking each invalid attempt sequentially is a solid technique to replicate user iteration.

69-69: Reserved port confirmation flow tested.
This confirms that user choices on system-reserved ports are handled consistently.

70-70: Sequential mocks capture user acceptance.
Mocking prompt acceptance properly checks the flow for reserved ports.

78-78: Re-prompt usage for denied reserved port scenario.
Demonstrating multiple prompt interactions ensures real-world reliability.

79-79: Re-mock ensures new port request.
Chaining mockResolvedValueOnce calls accurately simulates user reconsideration.

88-88: Default port fallback logic tested.
Ensuring the test covers repeated denials properly addresses an essential edge case.

89-89: Robust test coverage for repeated negative confirmations.
Multiple unanswered confirmations reflect a realistic user scenario, validating the fallback to default.

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.

@github-actions GitHub Actions
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

@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 25, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 87.82%. Comparing base (471f113) to head (09c0f74).
Report is 2 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #2867       +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage             63.58%   87.82%   +24.24%     
=====================================================
  Files                   296      313       +17     
  Lines                  7371     8224      +853     
  Branches               1610     1855      +245     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   4687     7223     +2536     
+ Misses                 2451      802     -1649     
+ Partials                233      199       -34

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

@palisadoes palisadoes merged commit 34a60d0 into PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres Dec 25, 2024
13 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@coderabbitai coderabbitai[bot] coderabbitai[bot] approved these changes

@palisadoes palisadoes palisadoes approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@hustlernik @palisadoes