Use snapshot test #41
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot reviewed 4 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated no suggestions.
Files not reviewed (5)
- package.json: Language not supported
- src/components/Bio/snapshots/Bio.test.ts.snap: Language not supported
- src/components/Contact/snapshots/Contact.test.ts.snap: Language not supported
- src/components/Homepage/snapshots/Homepage.test.ts.snap: Language not supported
- src/pages/snapshots/index.test.ts.snap: Language not supported
Comments skipped due to low confidence (1)
src/components/Homepage/Homepage.test.ts:17
- Ensure that the snapshot test covers all the previous checks, including the presence of the encoded URL, use href, and aria-label.
expect(result).toMatchSnapshot();
prlabeler
bot
added
the
🧪 Testing
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #41 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 11 11
Lines 153 153
Branches 16 16
=========================================
Hits 153 153 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several changes across various files. A new script entry for testing has been added to Changes
Possibly related PRs
Warning Rate limit exceeded@5ouma has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 9 minutes and 58 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (4)
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)
🔇 Additional comments (3)src/test/index.test.ts (2)
As part of the transition to snapshot testing, consider:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for existing snapshot files and documentation
echo "Checking for snapshot files..."
fd ".snap" --type f
echo "Checking for testing documentation..."
fd "README|CONTRIBUTING" --type f --exec grep -l "test"
The
✅ Verification successfulLet me gather more information about the Astro Container API usage and testing setup. Let me check the vitest configuration and any documentation about the testing approach. Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response: Consistent usage of experimental API across test suite - proceed with caution The
The usage is acceptable, but add a comment in 🏁 Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: #!/bin/bash
# Check if there are other uses of experimental APIs in the codebase
rg "experimental_" --type ts
Length of output: 441 Script: #!/bin/bash
# Check for Astro Container usage across test files
rg "AstroContainer" --type ts -A 2
# Check package.json for astro version and dependencies
cat package.json
# Look for any testing documentation or setup files
fd "vitest.config|test.setup" --type f
Length of output: 3425 Script: #!/bin/bash
# Check vitest config
cat vitest.config.ts
# Look for any documentation about testing
cat README.md
# Check if there's any migration or upgrade plan documented
fd "CHANGELOG|MIGRATION" --type f --exec cat {}
Length of output: 613 astro.config.ts (1)
While disabling the dev toolbar might help with snapshot testing by preventing it from appearing in snapshots, this configuration affects all environments. Consider if this should be:
Example approach using environment variables: - devToolbar: { enabled: false },
+ devToolbar: { enabled: process.env.NODE_ENV !== 'test' },Let's check if the dev toolbar affects snapshot tests: 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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
src/pages/index.test.ts (1)
10-10: Ensure snapshot testing best practicesWhen implementing snapshot testing:
- Review generated snapshots carefully before committing
- Keep snapshots focused and minimal
- Consider adding inline snapshot for critical UI elements
- Document snapshot update process in README
Consider adding a comment in the test file:
+// To update snapshots, run: npm test -- -u expect(result).toMatchSnapshot();src/components/Bio/Bio.test.ts (2)
13-13: LGTM! Consider adding snapshot testing documentation.The transition to snapshot testing is a good choice for UI components. However, to ensure maintainability:
- Add a comment explaining how to update snapshots (e.g.,
npm test -- -u)- Consider documenting snapshot review practices in the README
- expect(result).toMatchSnapshot(); + // Update snapshots with: npm test -- -u + expect(result).toMatchSnapshot();
AstroContainer API stability concerns confirmed - action required
The codebase extensively uses
experimental_AstroContaineracross multiple test files (Bio, Contact, Homepage, and index), and recent issues (#11906, #11882) from September 2024 indicate ongoing bugs and instability. With Astro version 4.16.13 in use, consider:
- Add a comment in test files documenting the experimental nature of the API
- Create an abstraction layer (e.g., test utility) to centralize the AstroContainer usage, making future migrations easier
- Monitor Astro's container issues for breaking changes
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-1: Verify stability of experimental AstroContainer API.The test uses
experimental_AstroContainerwhich may be subject to breaking changes. Consider:
- Documenting this dependency
- Monitoring Astro releases for API changes
- Having a migration plan if the API changes
Let me search for more information about the experimental status and usage of AstroContainer.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if there are any recent changes or deprecation notices for AstroContainer gh api graphql -f query=' { search(query: "repo:withastro/astro AstroContainer", type: ISSUE, first: 5) { nodes { ... on Issue { title url createdAt labels(first: 5) { nodes { name } } } } } }'Length of output: 1026
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for AstroContainer usage and documentation rg -A 3 "experimental_AstroContainer" # Check package.json for astro version cat package.json | jq '.dependencies.astro, .devDependencies.astro' # Look for any migration guides or documentation fd README.md | xargs rg -i "astrocontainer|container api"Length of output: 2491
src/components/Homepage/Homepage.test.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-31: Consider implementing a hybrid testing approachWhile snapshot testing is valuable for catching unintended UI changes, consider maintaining some explicit assertions for critical functionality alongside snapshots:
- Use snapshots for overall component structure
- Keep explicit assertions for:
- Accessibility attributes
- URL parsing logic
- Critical business logic
- Add documentation about snapshot review process
This hybrid approach provides better coverage and makes test failures more meaningful.
Consider this approach:
test(name, async () => { const container: AstroContainer = await AstroContainer.create(); const result: string = await container.renderToString(Homepage, { props, }); // Critical assertions expect(result).toContain('aria-label'); expect(result).toContain(new URL(props.url).hostname); // Snapshot for overall structure expect(result).toMatchSnapshot(); });package.json (1)
13-13: Consider documenting the snapshot testing workflow.Since you're introducing snapshot testing, it would be helpful to document:
- When to use
npm testvsnpm run test:update- Guidelines for reviewing snapshot changes
- Best practices for maintaining snapshots
Would you like me to help draft this documentation in the project's README or testing guide?
src/components/Contact/Contact.test.ts (1)
16-16: Consider combining snapshot tests with critical assertionsWhile snapshot testing is valuable for detecting unintended changes, consider maintaining specific assertions for critical functionality alongside snapshots. This ensures that essential component behaviors are explicitly verified.
Example of combining both approaches:
+ // Verify critical functionality first + expect(result).toContain(props.service); + expect(result).toContain(props.id); + // Then capture full structure expect(result).toMatchSnapshot();
🛑 Comments failed to post (1)
src/pages/index.test.ts (1)
6-11: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add error handling and container cleanup
The test should handle potential errors and clean up resources:
test("Index", async () => { - const container: AstroContainer = await AstroContainer.create(); - const result: string = await container.renderToString(Index); + let container: AstroContainer; + try { + container = await AstroContainer.create(); + const result = await container.renderToString(Index); + expect(result).toMatchSnapshot(); + } catch (error) { + throw new Error(`Failed to render Index component: ${error}`); + } finally { + await container?.dispose?.(); + } - expect(result).toMatchSnapshot(); });📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.test("Index", async () => { let container: AstroContainer; try { container = await AstroContainer.create(); const result = await container.renderToString(Index); expect(result).toMatchSnapshot(); } catch (error) { throw new Error(`Failed to render Index component: ${error}`); } finally { await container?.dispose?.(); } });
It will detect any changes to them.
🔦 Lighthouse Result
📊 Score Scale
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot reviewed 5 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated no suggestions.
Files not reviewed (5)
- package.json: Language not supported
- src/components/Bio/snapshots/Bio.test.ts.snap: Language not supported
- src/components/Contact/snapshots/Contact.test.ts.snap: Language not supported
- src/components/Homepage/snapshots/Homepage.test.ts.snap: Language not supported
- src/test/snapshots/index.test.ts.snap: Language not supported
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🛑 Comments failed to post (1)
src/test/index.test.ts (1)
6-11: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance test robustness and structure
While the snapshot test is a good start, consider these improvements:
- Add error handling for
renderToString- Clean up the container after test
- Add specific assertions alongside snapshot test
Consider this enhanced implementation:
test("Index", async () => { const container: AstroContainer = await AstroContainer.create(); - const result: string = await container.renderToString(Index); + try { + const result: string = await container.renderToString(Index); + + // Snapshot test + expect(result).toMatchSnapshot(); + + // Specific assertions + expect(result).toContain("<html"); // Basic structure + expect(result).not.toContain("undefined"); // No undefined renders + } catch (error) { + throw new Error(`Failed to render Index component: ${error}`); + } finally { + await container.dispose(); // Clean up + } - expect(result).toMatchSnapshot(); });📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.test("Index", async () => { const container: AstroContainer = await AstroContainer.create(); try { const result: string = await container.renderToString(Index); // Snapshot test expect(result).toMatchSnapshot(); // Specific assertions expect(result).toContain("<html"); // Basic structure expect(result).not.toContain("undefined"); // No undefined renders } catch (error) { throw new Error(`Failed to render Index component: ${error}`); } finally { await container.dispose(); // Clean up } });
close #
✏️ Description
It will detect any changes to them.
🔄 Type of the Change