Skip to content

Conversation

@JustARatherRidiculouslyLongUsername
Copy link
Contributor

@JustARatherRidiculouslyLongUsername JustARatherRidiculouslyLongUsername commented Oct 14, 2024

image

Clickup

Closes
https://app.clickup.com/t/86cwqhb7n
https://app.clickup.com/t/86cwqhb30

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced testing capabilities for the Intacct C1 Import Settings component with new utility functions.
    • Introduced a new constant for custom field form values to support testing.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Improved handling of custom fields and dependencies in the testing framework.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 14, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes enhance the testing framework of the IntacctC1ImportSettingsComponent. A new variable, customFieldFormValue, is introduced, along with several utility functions to improve testing for custom fields and dependent fields. The test suite is expanded with new test cases validating these utility functions. Additionally, a new constant for customFieldFormValue is added in a fixture file, contributing to the overall testing capabilities of the component.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-c1-import-settings/intacct-c1-import-settings.component.spec.ts - Added variable: customFieldFormValue
- Added methods: expenseFieldsGetter, navigateToPreviousStep, refreshDimensions, removeFilter, hasDuplicateOption, showOrHideAddButton, showPreviewDialog, showWarningForDependentFields, acceptDependentFieldWarning, addExpenseField, closeModel, saveCustomField, saveDependentCustomField, saveFyleExpenseField
- Expanded test suite with corresponding test cases.
src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct.fixture.ts - Added constant: customFieldFormValue with structure { attribute_type: 'TEST', source_placeholder: 'TEST_PLACEHOLDER' }
- Added a new line at the end of the file for formatting.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • DhaaraniCIT
  • ashwin1111

Poem

In the land of code where rabbits play,
New tests hop in, brightening the day.
Custom fields dance, dependencies sing,
With each new function, joy they bring.
So let’s celebrate, with a joyful cheer,
For testing enhancements, we hold dear! 🐰✨


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 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.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

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.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 4

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1ac9a52 and 71cbce5.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-c1-import-settings/intacct-c1-import-settings.component.spec.ts (3 hunks)
  • src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct.fixture.ts (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
  • src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct.fixture.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-c1-import-settings/intacct-c1-import-settings.component.spec.ts (4)

25-26: Imports are appropriately added

The imported fixtures blankMapping and customFieldFormValue are utilized correctly in the test cases.


33-35: Necessary imports added for testing

The imports for ExpenseField, MappingSourceField, and ConfigurationWarningOut are necessary for the new test cases and are correctly added.


72-73: TestBed configuration is correctly updated

The additions to the declarations and imports arrays in the TestBed configuration are appropriate for the component being tested.


399-407: Verify logic when handling warning acceptance

In the acceptDependentFieldWarning test, when hasAccepted is set to false, the isDependentImportEnabled flag is set to true. This may not align with expected behavior, as declining a warning might imply not enabling the import. Please verify if this logic is intentional.

Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 71cbce5 and 1522133.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-c1-import-settings/intacct-c1-import-settings.component.spec.ts (3 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (6)
src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-shared/intacct-c1-import-settings/intacct-c1-import-settings.component.spec.ts (6)

25-26: LGTM

The imports for blankMapping and customFieldFormValue enhance the test fixtures appropriately.


333-492: Well-structured utility function tests

The addition of utility function tests improves the code coverage and ensures that the component's auxiliary methods are functioning correctly.


370-376: Duplicate comment: Mock AbstractControl correctly in unit tests

A previous review comment addressed the need to mock AbstractControl accurately in your tests. This concern remains applicable to the current code segment.


456-457: Duplicate comment: Correct indexing in test assertion

An earlier comment highlighted an indexing error where component.costCategoryOption[component.costCodeFieldOption.length - 1] should likely be component.costCategoryOption[component.costCategoryOption.length - 1]. The issue persists and should be corrected as previously suggested.


488-489: Duplicate comment: Ensure array has sufficient elements before accessing

A prior comment noted a potential out-of-bounds error when accessing component.fyleFields[component.fyleFields.length - 2]. This concern is still relevant and should be addressed to prevent runtime errors.


490-491: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Confirm the necessity of reassigning fyleFields

In the saveFyleExpenseField method, reassigning the last element of component.fyleFields to component.customFieldOption[0] might be unnecessary and could introduce issues if the array is empty.

Consider appending the new custom field option to the fyleFields array instead of reassigning:

- component.fyleFields[component.fyleFields.length - 1] = component.customFieldOption[0];
+ component.fyleFields.push(component.customFieldOption[0]);

This ensures the custom field is added without overwriting existing entries, maintaining data integrity.

Likely invalid or redundant comment.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

size/M Medium PR

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants