test: intacct export settings init, save, and misc functions #1001
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve modifications to the test suites for the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
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.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-export-settings/intacct-export-settings.component.spec.ts (1)
110-118: Use appropriate matchers for object comparison in arraysWhen checking if an array contains an object with specific properties,
toContainmay not work as expected because it checks for object identity. UsearrayContainingalong withobjectContainingto perform a deep comparison based on object properties.Apply this diff to update the expectation:
expect(component.destinationOptions.ACCOUNT).toContain({ destination_id: mockExportSettings.general_mappings.default_gl_account.id, value: mockExportSettings.general_mappings.default_gl_account.name } as unknown as IntacctDestinationAttribute); - expect(component.destinationOptions.ACCOUNT).toContain({ + expect(component.destinationOptions.ACCOUNT).toEqual(jasmine.arrayContaining([ { destination_id: mockExportSettings.general_mappings.default_credit_card.id, value: mockExportSettings.general_mappings.default_credit_card.name - } as unknown as IntacctDestinationAttribute); + } as IntacctDestinationAttribute + ]));
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-main/intacct-dashboard/intacct-dashboard.component.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-export-settings/intacct-export-settings.component.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct.fixture.ts (2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-main/intacct-dashboard/intacct-dashboard.component.spec.ts
🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-export-settings/intacct-export-settings.component.spec.ts (2)
83-106: Verify asynchronous operations in initialization testsWhile the
beforeEachblock is wrapped withfakeAsync, individual tests may also need to handle asynchronous operations, especially if they trigger change detection or involve async services. Ensure that any asynchronous logic within the tests is properly managed.If asynchronous operations are present in the tests, consider wrapping them with
fakeAsyncand usingtick()where necessary.
61-61:⚠️ Potential issueReplace
structuredClonewith a compatible deep clone methodThe use of
structuredClonemay not be supported in all testing environments, especially in older versions of Node.js. To ensure compatibility, consider usingJSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))for deep cloning objects.Apply this diff to replace
structuredClone:- const copy = structuredClone(mockPaginatedDestinationAttributes); + const copy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(mockPaginatedDestinationAttributes));Likely invalid or redundant comment.
src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct.fixture.ts (2)
478-478: Verify the validity ofnullvalue forsplit_expense_groupingThe
split_expense_groupingproperty is assignednull. Please confirm whethernullis an acceptable value for this field according to theExportSettingGetmodel. If the field is optional andnullis acceptable, no action is needed. Otherwise, consider assigning a validSplitExpenseGroupingenum value or omitting the property.
10-10: Verify the import path forSkipExportLogResponseThe import statement for
SkipExportLogResponseimports fromsrc/app/core/models/intacct/db/expense-group.model, while other related models are imported fromsrc/app/core/models/db/expense-group.model. Please confirm ifSkipExportLogResponseis correctly located in theintacct/dbdirectory or if the import path should be adjusted for consistency.Run the following script to verify the location of
SkipExportLogResponse:✅ Verification successful
Import Path for
SkipExportLogResponseis CorrectThe
SkipExportLogResponseis correctly imported fromsrc/app/core/models/intacct/db/expense-group.model. No changes are necessary for consistency.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find declarations of 'SkipExportLogResponse' in the codebase. # Expected: 'SkipExportLogResponse' should be defined in 'src/app/core/models/db/expense-group.model' for consistency. # Search for the interface or type declaration. rg --type typescript 'interface SkipExportLogResponse|type SkipExportLogResponse'Length of output: 118
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find declarations of 'SkipExportLogResponse' in the TypeScript codebase. # Expected: 'SkipExportLogResponse' should be defined in 'src/app/core/models/db/expense-group.model' for consistency. # Search for the interface or type declaration within .ts and .tsx files. rg 'interface SkipExportLogResponse|type SkipExportLogResponse' --glob '*.ts' --glob '*.tsx'Length of output: 215
...ons/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-export-settings/intacct-export-settings.component.spec.ts
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ons/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-export-settings/intacct-export-settings.component.spec.ts
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ons/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-export-settings/intacct-export-settings.component.spec.ts
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| spent_at: new Date("2024-08-12T00:00:00"), | ||
| expense_id: "txPpUSwko5es", | ||
| fund_source: "CCC", | ||
| employee_email: "[email protected]" | ||
| } as unknown as ExpenseGroupDescription, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct the expense_id in the description of the second expense group
In the second expense group of mockExpenseGroupResponse, the expense_id in the description field is txPpUSwko5es, which matches the first expense group. It should match the expense_id of the expense within this group (txoerMCRLkJ4) to ensure data consistency.
Apply this diff to fix the issue:
description: {
spent_at: new Date("2024-08-12T00:00:00"),
- expense_id: "txPpUSwko5es",
+ expense_id: "txoerMCRLkJ4",
fund_source: "CCC",
employee_email: "[email protected]"
} as unknown as ExpenseGroupDescription,📝 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.
| spent_at: new Date("2024-08-12T00:00:00"), | |
| expense_id: "txPpUSwko5es", | |
| fund_source: "CCC", | |
| employee_email: "[email protected]" | |
| } as unknown as ExpenseGroupDescription, | |
| spent_at: new Date("2024-08-12T00:00:00"), | |
| expense_id: "txoerMCRLkJ4", | |
| fund_source: "CCC", | |
| employee_email: "[email protected]" | |
| } as unknown as ExpenseGroupDescription, |
| updated_at: '2024-08-12T12:17:27.837958Z', | ||
| claim_number: 'C/2024/08/R/8', | ||
| employee_email: '[email protected]', | ||
| employee_name: 'Ashwin', | ||
| fund_source: 'CCC', | ||
| expense_number: 'E/2024/08/T/8', | ||
| category: 'ABN Withholding', | ||
| amount: -460.0, | ||
| expense_id: 'txPpUSwko5es' | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| fund_source: 'CCC', | ||
| created_at: '2024-08-12T12:17:27.916749Z', | ||
| updated_at: '2024-08-27T16:51:07.218092Z', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure consistent date types in updated_at and created_at fields
In mockSkipExportLogResponse, the updated_at and created_at fields are assigned string values, whereas similar fields in other mock data use Date objects. This inconsistency can lead to unexpected behavior in tests. Please standardize these fields to use Date objects for consistency.
Apply this diff to fix the issue:
updated_at: '2024-08-12T12:17:27.837958Z',
+ updated_at: new Date('2024-08-12T12:17:27.837958Z'),
claim_number: 'C/2024/08/R/8',
// ...
},
fund_source: 'CCC',
- created_at: '2024-08-12T12:17:27.916749Z',
- updated_at: '2024-08-27T16:51:07.218092Z',
+ created_at: new Date('2024-08-12T12:17:27.916749Z'),
+ updated_at: new Date('2024-08-27T16:51:07.218092Z'),
workspace: 240Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
Clickup
https://app.clickup.com/t/86cwh86d4
https://app.clickup.com/t/86cwh86d8
Summary by CodeRabbit
IntacctExportSettingsComponentwith new test cases for initialization and form saving scenarios.IntacctDashboardComponentby removing an unused import.intacct.fixture.tsfile to provide comprehensive representations of expense-related entities.