#3023 Improve Code Coverage in CommunityProfile.tsx #3258
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request focuses on improving code coverage for the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
Our Pull Request Approval ProcessThanks for contributing! Testing Your CodeRemember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:
Our policies make our code better. ReviewersDo not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
Reviewing Your CodeYour reviewer(s) will have the following roles:
CONTRIBUTING.mdRead our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:
Other
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
src/screens/CommunityProfile/CommunityProfile.spec.tsx (3)
146-284: Add JSDoc comments to document mock purposes.While the mocks are well-structured, adding documentation would improve maintainability and make the test scenarios clearer for other developers.
Consider adding JSDoc comments before each mock definition:
+/** + * Mock for testing loading state with artificial delay + */ const LOADING_MOCK = [ // ... existing code ]; +/** + * Mock for testing error handling during community update + */ const ERROR_MOCK = [ // ... existing code ];Also, consider adopting a consistent naming convention (either camelCase or UPPER_SNAKE_CASE) for all mock constants.
478-491: Enhance loading state test coverage.The test verifies that the loader appears but doesn't verify that it disappears after data is loaded.
Consider adding:
test('should show loader while data is being fetched', async () => { render( <MockedProvider addTypename={false} mocks={LOADING_MOCK}> <BrowserRouter> <I18nextProvider i18n={i18n}> <CommunityProfile /> </I18nextProvider> </BrowserRouter> </MockedProvider>, ); // Loader should be present during loading state expect(screen.getByTestId('spinner-wrapper')).toBeInTheDocument(); + + // Wait for data to load + await wait(); + + // Loader should be removed after loading + expect(screen.queryByTestId('spinner-wrapper')).not.toBeInTheDocument(); });
537-546: Extract magic numbers into named constants.The timeout value of 2000ms is hardcoded in multiple places.
Consider defining a constant at the top of the file:
+const ASYNC_TIMEOUT = 2000; + const nameInput = await screen.findByPlaceholderText( /Community Name/i, {}, - { timeout: 2000 }, + { timeout: ASYNC_TIMEOUT }, );
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
src/screens/CommunityProfile/CommunityProfile.spec.tsx(3 hunks)src/screens/CommunityProfile/CommunityProfile.tsx(0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- src/screens/CommunityProfile/CommunityProfile.tsx
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: Test Application
- GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (javascript)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/screens/CommunityProfile/CommunityProfile.spec.tsx (2)
14-18: LGTM! Clean error handler setup.The error handler mock is properly set up using Vitest's mocking functionality.
478-612: Great job on improving test coverage!The new test cases effectively cover various scenarios including loading states, error handling, and successful updates. The tests are well-structured and contribute significantly to the PR's objective of improving code coverage.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop-postgres #3258 +/- ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage 8.49% 90.24% +81.75%
=====================================================
Files 309 330 +21
Lines 7828 8491 +663
Branches 1730 1875 +145
=====================================================
+ Hits 665 7663 +6998
+ Misses 7089 599 -6490
- Partials 74 229 +155 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
src/screens/CommunityProfile/CommunityProfile.spec.tsx (1)
564-589: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionStrengthen base64 conversion test.
The test for null base64 conversion lacks assertions to verify the expected behavior.
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
src/screens/CommunityProfile/CommunityProfile.spec.tsx (4)
146-158: Enhance loading mock delay documentation.The delay comment could be more descriptive to explain its purpose in testing the loading state.
- delay: 100, // Add delay to ensure loading state is rendered + delay: 100, // Artificial delay to ensure the loading spinner is visible during test execution
160-194: Consider consolidating similar mock structures.ERROR_MOCK and BASE64_MOCKS have similar structures with null getCommunityData. Consider creating a shared mock factory or helper function to reduce duplication.
Example:
const createBaseMock = (overrides = {}) => ({ request: { query: GET_COMMUNITY_DATA, }, result: { data: { getCommunityData: null, }, }, ...overrides, });Also applies to: 233-244
537-546: Consider extracting timeout values to constants.The timeout value of 2000ms is hardcoded in multiple places. Consider extracting it to a named constant for better maintainability.
+const ASYNC_TIMEOUT = 2000; + const nameInput = await screen.findByPlaceholderText( /Community Name/i, {}, - { timeout: 2000 }, + { timeout: ASYNC_TIMEOUT }, );
591-618: Enhance success test assertions.The success test could verify more aspects of the update operation:
- Verify the form state after submission
- Check if the save button is disabled during submission
- Validate the exact success message
Example additions:
// Verify form state expect(submitButton).toBeDisabled(); expect(nameInput).toHaveValue('Test Name'); // Verify exact success message expect(toast.success).toHaveBeenCalledWith('Community profile updated successfully');
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/screens/CommunityProfile/CommunityProfile.spec.tsx(3 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: Test Application
- GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (javascript)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/screens/CommunityProfile/CommunityProfile.spec.tsx (2)
14-18: LGTM! Good error handling setup.The error handler is properly imported and mocked, following testing best practices.
478-618: Great job on improving test coverage!The new test cases effectively cover various scenarios including loading states, error handling, and successful updates. The tests are well-structured and follow good testing practices.
palisadoes
merged commit 99fd263
into
PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Improve Code Coverage
Issue Number:
Fixes #3023
Snapshots/Videos:
If relevant, did you update the documentation?
No
Summary
This PR improves code coverage in the src/screens/CommunityProfile/CommunityProfile.tsx
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No
Checklist
CodeRabbit AI Review
Test Coverage
Other information
Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes
Summary by CodeRabbit
Tests
Chores