test: intacct import settings watchers #1010
Conversation
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughThe pull request enhances the test suite for the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
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
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: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-import-settings/intacct-import-settings.component.spec.ts (3)
79-79: Avoid unnecessary spying onrouter.urlpropertyYou have spied on the
router.urlproperty usingspyOnProperty(router, 'url'). If you are not modifying the behavior ofrouter.urlin your tests, this spying may be unnecessary. Removing it can prevent potential side effects and simplify your test setup.
257-271: Provide specific error objects when simulating errorsWhen testing error handling in your
savemethod, you are usingthrowError(() => new Error())to simulate an error. Consider providing a more specific error message or custom error object to accurately test how your component handles different error scenarios. This can improve the robustness of your tests.Apply this change to provide a specific error message:
-siImportSettingService.postImportSettings.and.returnValue(throwError(() => new Error())); +siImportSettingService.postImportSettings.and.returnValue(throwError(() => new Error('Network Error')));
274-288: Accessing private properties directly in testsYou are directly assigning a value to the private property
sessionStartTimein your test. While accessing private properties is sometimes necessary in tests, consider if there's a way to test the time tracking functionality through public APIs or by refactoring your code to make it more testable without accessing private members.src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct.fixture.ts (1)
766-777: Ensure consistent casing in 'display_name' propertiesThe
display_nameproperties withinsageIntacctFieldshave inconsistent casing ('customer', 'item', 'Project'). For consistency and better readability, consider capitalizing alldisplay_namevalues.Apply the following diffs to fix the casing:
766 { 767 attribute_type: 'CUSTOMER', - display_name: 'customer' + display_name: 'Customer' 768 }, 769 { 770 attribute_type: 'ITEM', - display_name: 'item' + display_name: 'Item' 771 },
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-import-settings/intacct-import-settings.component.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct.fixture.ts (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (5)
src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-import-settings/intacct-import-settings.component.spec.ts (4)
183-191: Ensure proper use offakeAsyncandtick()for asynchronous testsIn your test for handling dependent fields when project mapping exists, verify that
tick()is used appropriately to simulate the passage of time for asynchronous operations. Ensure that all asynchronous calls within the test are flushed correctly to avoid unexpected behavior.
184-191: Verify that dependent field options are set correctlyAfter changing the return value of
getImportSettings, confirm thatcomponent.costCodeFieldOptionandcomponent.costTypeFieldOptionare populated as expected. This ensures that your component reacts correctly to changes in the import settings service.
129-138: Tests correctly setintacctCategoryDestinationbased on configurationYour test adequately verifies that
intacctCategoryDestinationis set appropriately when the configuration changes. This ensures that the component behaves correctly under different configuration scenarios.
206-290: Comprehensive tests for thesavefunctionalityThe tests for the
savemethod cover various scenarios, including onboarding and post-onboarding flows, success, and error handling. This thorough testing provides confidence in the robustness of the save functionality.src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct.fixture.ts (1)
853-858: Verify properties of 'costCodeFieldValue' and 'costTypeFieldValue'The objects
costCodeFieldValueandcostTypeFieldValueinclude asource_placeholderproperty. Please verify ifsource_placeholderis a valid property of theExpenseFieldinterface. If not, consider updating the interface or removing the property.To verify whether
source_placeholderis a property ofExpenseField, you can run the following script:Also applies to: 860-864
✅ Verification successful
Verified: 'source_placeholder' is a valid property of the
ExpenseFieldtypeThe
ExpenseFieldtype includes thesource_placeholderproperty as confirmed by multiple occurrences in the codebase.
- Examples:
src/app/core/models/common/import-settings.model.tssrc/app/core/models/intacct/db/expense-field.model.ts- Various integration modules like
src/app/integrations/sage300/sage300-shared/sage300-import-settings/sage300-import-settings.component.ts🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify if 'source_placeholder' is a property of the 'ExpenseField' interface. # Expected result: Interface definition of 'ExpenseField' including 'source_placeholder'. # Search for the 'ExpenseField' interface with 'source_placeholder' property ast-grep --lang typescript --pattern $'interface ExpenseField { $$$ source_placeholder: $_; $$$ }'Length of output: 105
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Retrieve the complete definition of the 'ExpenseField' interface to list all its properties. ast-grep --lang typescript --pattern $'interface ExpenseField { $$$ }'Length of output: 71
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for all definitions and usages of 'ExpenseField' and 'source_placeholder' within TypeScript files. # Search for any definitions of 'ExpenseField' as an interface, type, or class rg --type typescript '^(export\s+)?(interface|type|class)\s+ExpenseField\b' # Search for all usages of 'source_placeholder' rg --type typescript 'source_placeholder'Length of output: 189
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Broad search for 'ExpenseField' interface and 'source_placeholder' property without specifying file types. # Search for any definitions of 'ExpenseField' as an interface, type, or class across all files rg '^(export\s+)?(interface|type|class)\s+ExpenseField\b' # Search for all usages of 'source_placeholder' across all files rg 'source_placeholder'Length of output: 21383
...ons/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-import-settings/intacct-import-settings.component.spec.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...ons/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-import-settings/intacct-import-settings.component.spec.ts
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| spyOn(component as any, 'addCustomField').and.callThrough(); | ||
|
|
||
| component.importSettingsForm.patchValue({ | ||
| costCodes: { | ||
| attribute_type: 'custom_field', | ||
| source_field: 'custom_field' | ||
| } | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(component['addCustomField']).toHaveBeenCalled(); | ||
| expect(component.customFieldForDependentField).toBeTrue(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Avoid spying on private methods in tests
Similar to the previous comment, you are spying on the private method addCustomField when handling custom field selection for cost codes and cost types. Focus on testing the observable outcomes rather than the invocation of private methods. This approach keeps your tests aligned with best practices.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-import-settings/intacct-import-settings.component.spec.ts (1)
218-223: Use constants instead of magic numbers for better readabilityIn the test
'should successfully save import settings during onboarding', the number3is used directly in the call toexpect(trackingService.integrationsOnboardingCompletion).toHaveBeenCalledWith(...). Consider defining a descriptive constant for this value to improve code readability and maintainability.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-import-settings/intacct-import-settings.component.spec.ts (6 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-import-settings/intacct-import-settings.component.spec.ts (4)
78-78: LGTM: Proper setup of spy on router URLThe use of
spyOnPropertyto mock the router's URL is appropriate for controlling routing behavior in tests.
Line range hint
99-157: LGTM: Component Initialization tests are comprehensiveThe tests within the
Component Initializationdescribe block are well-structured and cover essential initialization and verification steps for the component.
313-325: Verify the use ofhasValidatormethod on FormControlIn the test
'should update validators when importTaxCodes value changes', thehasValidatormethod is used to check for the presence of the required validator. Ensure that the Angular version used in the project supportshasValidator, as this method was introduced in Angular 14. If using an earlier version, you may need to use alternative methods to check for validators.
343-353: Verify the use ofhasValidatormethod on FormControlSimilarly, in the test
'should handle isDependentImportEnabled changes', verify thathasValidatoris supported in your Angular version. If not, consider alternative approaches to check if validators are applied to the form controls.
| const mockStartTime = new Date(); | ||
| component['sessionStartTime'] = mockStartTime; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Avoid accessing private properties directly in tests
In the test 'should track time spent when saving settings', you're accessing the private property sessionStartTime using component['sessionStartTime']. Accessing private properties directly can violate encapsulation principles. Consider exposing a public method or property to set or retrieve sessionStartTime, or adjust the test to avoid direct manipulation of private members.
Clickup
https://app.clickup.com/t/86cwh86d2
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Tests