Refactor from jest to vitest #2483 #3139

khushipatil1523 · 2025-01-04T15:27:00Z

Refactor : src/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTag.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2483

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Refactor

Issue Number: #2483

Fixes #2483

Did you add tests for your changes?

Yes

Snapshots/Videos:

Summary

Migrated test for ChangeLanguageDropdown.tsx from jest to vitest.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

No

Have you read the contributing guide?

Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

Dependency Updates
- Added @eslint/eslintrc as a development dependency
- Removed @testing-library/dom from development dependencies
Testing Framework
- Migrated test suite from Jest to Vitest
- Updated mocking methods and test function declarations
- Improved test case structure and readability

coderabbitai · 2025-01-04T15:27:06Z

Walkthrough

This pull request involves two primary changes: updating the package.json file's dependencies and refactoring the AddPeopleToTag.spec.tsx test file from Jest to Vitest. The dependency modification includes adding @eslint/eslintrc and removing @testing-library/dom. The test file transformation involves replacing Jest-specific mocking and testing functions with their Vitest equivalents, maintaining the overall test logic and structure.

Changes

File	Change Summary
`package.json`	- Added `"@eslint/eslintrc": "^3.2.0"` to `devDependencies` - Removed `"@testing-library/dom": "^10.4.0"` from `devDependencies`
`src/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTag.spec.tsx`	- Replaced `jest.mock()` with `vi.mock()` - Updated test function declarations from `test()` to `it()` - Replaced `jest.fn()` with `vi.fn()` - Updated mocking strategy for `react-router-dom`

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Replace Jest-specific functions with Vitest equivalents [#2483]	✅
Rename test file from `.test.tsx` to `.spec.tsx` [#2483]	✅
Ensure tests pass using `npm run test:vitest` [#2483]	❓	Requires actual test run verification
Maintain 100% test coverage [#2483]	❓	Requires coverage report verification

Possibly related issues

Refactor: /src/components/TagActions/TagActions.test.tsx from jest to vitest #3120: Refactoring another component's tests from Jest to Vitest
Refactor : src/components/ChangeLanguageDropdown/ChangeLanguageDropdown.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2493: Similar Vitest migration for ChangeLanguageDropdown component
Refactor : src/components/CheckIn/CheckInWrapper.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2495: Vitest migration for CheckIn component tests
Refactor: src/screens/OrganizationTags/OrganizationTags.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #3071: Vitest migration for OrganizationTags tests

Possibly related PRs

feat!: Migrate Testing Framework from Jest to Vitest #2457: Base Vitest configuration migration
Refactored src/components/AddOn/support/components/Action/Action.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2482: Another Jest to Vitest test file refactoring
Refactored src/components/AddOn/core/AddOnEntry/AddOnEntry.test.tsx from Jest to Vitest #2501: Test file migration to Vitest
Refactor: src/screens/BlockUser from Jest to Vitest #2606: Vitest migration for BlockUser component tests

Suggested labels

refactor, test

Suggested reviewers

pranshugupta54
varshith257
disha1202

Poem

🐰 Hop, hop, testing we go!
From Jest to Vitest, watch our code flow
Mocks replaced, functions refined
A testing journey, cleverly designed
CodeRabbit'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 fb48e16 and 91e90fa.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)

package-lock.json is excluded by !**/package-lock.json

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

package.json (1 hunks)
src/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTag.spec.tsx (11 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Learnings (1)

src/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTag.spec.tsx (1)

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 (14)

src/components/AddPeopleToTag/AddPeopleToTag.spec.tsx (12)

2-2: Migration to Vitest recognized.

The import statement is correctly updated to use Vitest methods (vi, expect, describe, it). Looks good.

38-41: Mocking with Vitest is correctly configured.

Replacing jest.mock() with vi.mock() and jest.fn() with vi.fn() is consistent with Vitest's API. No concerns here.

118-128: Correct use of importActual for react-router-dom.

This approach accurately imports the original module before overriding useParams. The method is valid and aligns well with Vitest mocking best practices.

132-132: Resetting mocks with vi.clearAllMocks().

Replacing jest.clearAllMocks() with vi.clearAllMocks() properly resets the mocks for each test. This is a standard Vitest usage.

136-136: Switching from test to it.

Renaming test to it is acceptable. The new naming convention remains descriptive, and the test logic appears unchanged.

146-146: Good consistent naming.

Again, switching from test to it while preserving logic ensures consistency and clarity in the test suite.

156-156: Maintained test logic.

The function's purpose—selecting and deselecting members—remains intact. No issues with the Vitest syntax.

184-184: Appropriate update for search functionality.

Changing test to it maintains readability, and the test logic is correct. Everything aligns with Vitest usage.

217-217: Accurate transition to it.

No additional changes besides the function name. Functionality remains the same.

250-250: Infinite scroll test migrated properly.

Apart from replacing test with it, no other modifications were introduced. The logic is consistent.

279-279: Toast error handling test.

The usage of toast.error with vi.fn() remains correct. This test's refactor is aligned with Vitest.

294-294: Tag assignment test migrated successfully.

Again, only the function name changed to it. The test logic is unaffected.

package.json (2)

120-120: Added @eslint/eslintrc.

This addition may be necessary for updated linting configurations in tandem with Vitest. No concerns.

121-121: Removed @testing-library/dom.

Removing this library aligns with eliminating unused Jest-related utilities post-migration to Vitest.

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 · 2025-01-04T15:27:25Z

Our Pull Request Approval Process

Thanks for contributing!

Testing Your Code

Remember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:

We don't merge PRs with poor code quality.
1. Follow coding best practices such that CodeRabbit.ai approves your PR.
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.
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:

comments in this PR or
our slack channel

Reviewing Your Code

Your reviewer(s) will have the following roles:

arbitrators of future discussions with other contributors about the validity of your changes
point of contact for evaluating the validity of your work
person who verifies matching issues by others that should be closed.
person who gives general guidance in fixing your tests

CONTRIBUTING.md

Read our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:

PRs with issues not assigned to you will be closed by the reviewer
Fix the first comment in the PR so that each issue listed automatically closes

Other

🎯 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.
Read the CONTRIBUTING.md file make

codecov · 2025-01-04T15:38:43Z

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.64%. Comparing base (fb48e16) to head (91e90fa).
Report is 5 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #3139       +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage             20.93%   89.64%   +68.70%     
=====================================================
  Files                   301      322       +21     
  Lines                  7685     8451      +766     
  Branches               1678     1841      +163     
=====================================================
+ Hits                   1609     7576     +5967     
+ Misses                 5977      646     -5331     
- Partials                 99      229      +130

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

palisadoes · 2025-01-04T19:03:35Z

You have submitted a PR with files that are not relevant to the issue
Reset your package-lock.json and package.json files to match that of the current repo
commit and push.
The PR should only have one file then

noman2002

Please address the changes suggested by @palisadoes

conversion successfully completed

91e90fa

coderabbitai bot approved these changes Jan 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

duplixx self-requested a review January 4, 2025 19:31

noman2002 requested changes Jan 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

khushipatil1523 closed this Jan 5, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Refactor from jest to vitest #2483 #3139

Refactor from jest to vitest #2483 #3139

khushipatil1523 commented Jan 4, 2025 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Chat

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

Other keywords and placeholders

Documentation and Community

github-actions bot commented Jan 4, 2025

codecov bot commented Jan 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

palisadoes commented Jan 4, 2025

noman2002 left a comment

Refactor from jest to vitest #2483 #3139

Refactor from jest to vitest #2483 #3139

Conversation

khushipatil1523 commented Jan 4, 2025 • edited by coderabbitai bot Loading

Summary by CodeRabbit

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 4, 2025 • edited Loading

Walkthrough

Changes

Assessment against linked issues

Possibly related issues

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

Suggested reviewers

Poem

Chat

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

Other keywords and placeholders

Documentation and Community

github-actions bot commented Jan 4, 2025

Our Pull Request Approval Process

Testing Your Code

Reviewers

Reviewing Your Code

CONTRIBUTING.md

Other

codecov bot commented Jan 4, 2025 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

palisadoes commented Jan 4, 2025

noman2002 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

khushipatil1523 commented Jan 4, 2025 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jan 4, 2025 •

edited

Loading