test: unit test the intacct mapping page #983
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes involve enhancements to the test suites 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: 6
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-main/intacct-mapping/intacct-mapping.component.spec.ts (5)
11-34: LGTM: Comprehensive test suite setup with a minor suggestion.The test suite setup is well-structured and covers all necessary aspects for thorough testing. The use of spies, mocks, and router setup is appropriate for unit testing.
Consider extracting the mock data initialization (lines 29-31) into a separate
beforeEachblock or a setup function. This would improve readability and make it easier to modify these values for specific tests if needed in the future.let mockMappingSettings: MappingSettingResponse; beforeEach(() => { mockMappingSettings = {...mockMappingSettingsResponse}; mappingServiceSpy.getMappingSettings.and.returnValue(of(mockMappingSettings)); brandingConfig.brandId = 'fyle'; brandingFeatureConfig.featureFlags.mapEmployees = true; });
53-60: LGTM: Effective custom mapping fields test with a suggestion.This test case successfully verifies the component's ability to handle custom mapping fields. The use of a specific mock response and the expectations covering the number of mapping pages and custom field properties are appropriate.
Consider adding an expectation to verify that the existing mapping pages are still present and in the correct order. This would ensure that adding custom fields doesn't disrupt the standard mapping pages.
expect(component.mappingPages[0].label).toBe('Employee'); expect(component.mappingPages[1].label).toBe('Category'); expect(component.mappingPages[2].label).toBe('Project');
62-68: LGTM: Good test for feature flag handling with a suggestion.This test case effectively verifies the component's behavior when the employee mapping feature is disabled. It correctly checks the number of mapping pages and the absence of the employee mapping page.
To make the test more robust, consider adding expectations to verify the labels of the remaining mapping pages. This ensures that disabling the employee mapping feature doesn't affect other mapping pages.
expect(component.mappingPages[0].label).toBe('Category'); expect(component.mappingPages[1].label).toBe('Project');
70-76: LGTM: Good test for branding configurations with suggestions for improvement.This test case effectively verifies the component's response to different branding configurations, particularly in handling custom field labels.
Consider the following improvements to make the test more comprehensive:
- Add expectations for standard mapping pages to ensure they're not affected by branding changes.
- Test multiple brand IDs to ensure consistent behavior across different brands.
- Consider extracting the branding-specific logic into a separate function for better maintainability.
Here's an example of how you could implement these suggestions:
it('should handle different branding configurations', () => { const testBranding = (brandId: string, expectedLabel: string) => { mappingServiceSpy.getMappingSettings.and.returnValue(of(mockMappingSettingsWithCustomFieldResponse as MappingSettingResponse)); brandingConfig.brandId = brandId; fixture.detectChanges(); expect(component.mappingPages[0].label).toBe('Employee'); expect(component.mappingPages[1].label).toBe('Category'); expect(component.mappingPages[2].label).toBe('Project'); expect(component.mappingPages[3].label).toBe(expectedLabel); }; testBranding('co', 'Sample custom field'); testBranding('fyle', 'Sample Custom Field'); // Add more brand IDs as needed });This refactored version provides more comprehensive testing across different brands and ensures that both standard and custom mapping pages are correctly handled.
1-77: Great job on the comprehensive test suite!The test suite for the IntacctMappingComponent is well-structured and covers crucial aspects of the component's behavior, including initialization, custom fields handling, feature flag responses, and branding configurations. The use of mocks and spies effectively isolates the component for proper unit testing.
To further enhance the test suite, consider the following suggestions:
- Add edge cases: Test scenarios with empty or malformed responses from the mapping service.
- Error handling: Verify the component's behavior when the mapping service throws an error.
- User interactions: If the component has any user interactions (e.g., changing active modules), add tests for these scenarios.
- Asynchronous behavior: Ensure that any asynchronous operations are properly tested, possibly using fakeAsync or async/await patterns.
Example for testing error handling:
it('should handle errors from the mapping service', fakeAsync(() => { mappingServiceSpy.getMappingSettings.and.returnValue(throwError(() => new Error('Service error'))); fixture.detectChanges(); tick(); expect(component.isLoading).toBeFalse(); expect(component.error).toBeTruthy(); // Add more expectations based on how your component handles errors }));These additions would make the test suite even more robust and comprehensive.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-main/intacct-mapping/intacct-base-mapping/intacct-base-mapping.component.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-main/intacct-mapping/intacct-mapping.component.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct.fixture.ts (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome
src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct.fixture.ts
[error] 3-3: Do not shadow the global "Error" property.
Consider renaming this variable. It's easy to confuse the origin of variables when they're named after a known global.
(lint/suspicious/noShadowRestrictedNames)
🔇 Additional comments (8)
src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct-main/intacct-mapping/intacct-mapping.component.spec.ts (2)
2-9: LGTM: Imports and setup are appropriate.The new imports are well-chosen and necessary for the enhanced test suite. They provide the required dependencies for routing, services, branding configuration, and mock data.
44-51: LGTM: Comprehensive initialization test.This test case effectively verifies the initial state of the component, including loading state, mapping pages, active module, and navigation. The expectations are clear and cover crucial aspects of the component's initialization.
src/app/integrations/intacct/intacct.fixture.ts (6)
50-55: Well-structured mock data formockTasksInProgressThe
mockTasksInProgressobject is correctly defined and will enhance the comprehensiveness of unit tests for tasks in progress scenarios.
58-64: Well-structured mock data formockCompletedTasksWithFailuresThe
mockCompletedTasksWithFailuresobject is properly set up and will be valuable for testing scenarios involving completed tasks with failures.
65-120: Comprehensive mock export settings inmockExportSettingGetThe
mockExportSettingGetobject provides detailed configurations for export settings, which will aid in thorough testing of various export scenarios.
123-134: Accurate mock export details inmockExportDetailsThe
mockExportDetailsobject is well-defined, offering a clear summary of accounting exports. This will be beneficial for testing export summaries.
136-239: Detailed mock tasks data inmockTasksThe
mockTasksarray contains detailed task objects with various statuses and types, which will enhance the robustness of task-related unit tests.
245-278: Well-defined mock configuration inmockConfigurationThe
mockConfigurationobject is comprehensive and includes various settings that will assist in testing different configuration scenarios.
...cct/intacct-main/intacct-mapping/intacct-base-mapping/intacct-base-mapping.component.spec.ts
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| describe('getDestinationField', () => { | ||
| it('should return employee field mapping when source field is EMPLOYEE', () => { | ||
| component.sourceField = FyleField.EMPLOYEE; | ||
| const intacctConfiguration = { employee_field_mapping: 'EMPLOYEE' } as any; | ||
| const mappingSettings = [] as any; | ||
|
|
||
| const result = component['getDestinationField'](intacctConfiguration, mappingSettings); | ||
| expect(result).toBe('EMPLOYEE'); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should return EXPENSE_TYPE when source field is CATEGORY and reimbursable_expenses_object is EXPENSE_REPORT', () => { | ||
| component.sourceField = FyleField.CATEGORY; | ||
| const intacctConfiguration = { reimbursable_expenses_object: IntacctReimbursableExpensesObject.EXPENSE_REPORT } as any; | ||
| const mappingSettings = [] as any; | ||
|
|
||
| const result = component['getDestinationField'](intacctConfiguration, mappingSettings); | ||
| expect(result).toBe(IntacctCategoryDestination.EXPENSE_TYPE); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should return EXPENSE_TYPE when source field is CATEGORY and corporate_credit_card_expenses_object is EXPENSE_REPORT', () => { | ||
| component.sourceField = FyleField.CATEGORY; | ||
| const intacctConfiguration = { corporate_credit_card_expenses_object: IntacctCorporateCreditCardExpensesObject.EXPENSE_REPORT } as any; | ||
| const mappingSettings = [] as any; | ||
|
|
||
| const result = component['getDestinationField'](intacctConfiguration, mappingSettings); | ||
| expect(result).toBe(IntacctCategoryDestination.EXPENSE_TYPE); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should return ACCOUNT when source field is CATEGORY and neither expenses_object is EXPENSE_REPORT', () => { | ||
| component.sourceField = FyleField.CATEGORY; | ||
| const intacctConfiguration = { reimbursable_expenses_object: 'OTHER', corporate_credit_card_expenses_object: 'OTHER' } as any; | ||
| const mappingSettings = [] as any; | ||
|
|
||
| const result = component['getDestinationField'](intacctConfiguration, mappingSettings); | ||
| expect(result).toBe(IntacctCategoryDestination.ACCOUNT); | ||
| }); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider testing behavior through public methods instead of private methods
Testing private methods like getDestinationField ties your tests to the internal implementation, making refactoring more difficult. It's better to test the public methods or the overall behavior that relies on getDestinationField to ensure that changes in private methods do not require test modifications unless they affect external behavior.
...cct/intacct-main/intacct-mapping/intacct-base-mapping/intacct-base-mapping.component.spec.ts
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| it('should trigger auto map employees', () => { | ||
| mappingServiceSpy.triggerAutoMapEmployees.and.returnValue(of(null)); | ||
| component.triggerAutoMapEmployees(); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(component.isLoading).toBeFalse(); | ||
| expect(toastServiceSpy.displayToastMessage).toHaveBeenCalledWith(ToastSeverity.INFO, 'Auto mapping of employees may take few minutes'); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should handle error when triggering auto map employees', () => { | ||
| mappingServiceSpy.triggerAutoMapEmployees.and.returnValue(throwError(() => new Error('Error'))); | ||
| component.triggerAutoMapEmployees(); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(component.isLoading).toBeFalse(); | ||
| expect(toastServiceSpy.displayToastMessage).toHaveBeenCalledWith(ToastSeverity.ERROR, 'Something went wrong, please try again'); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure 'isLoading' state is properly managed
In the triggerAutoMapEmployees tests, component.isLoading is expected to be false after the operation. However, isLoading is never set to true before the operation starts. Consider setting component.isLoading = true; before triggering the method and updating the component code if necessary to reflect the loading state accurately.
Apply this change to set isLoading to true before the operation:
component.isLoading = true;
mappingServiceSpy.triggerAutoMapEmployees.and.returnValue(of(null));
component.triggerAutoMapEmployees();Ensure the component method triggerAutoMapEmployees correctly manages the isLoading state.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| export const mockErrors = [ | ||
| { id: 1, type: AccountingErrorType.EMPLOYEE_MAPPING, error_title: 'Employee mapping error' }, | ||
| { id: 2, type: AccountingErrorType.CATEGORY_MAPPING, error_title: 'Category mapping error' }, | ||
| { id: 3, type: AccountingErrorType.ACCOUNTING_ERROR, error_title: 'Accounting error' } | ||
| ] as Error[]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider renaming the Error type in mock errors
Similar to the import issue, using Error as a type here can cause confusion with the global Error object. Recommend renaming it to AccountingError for clarity.
Apply the following diff to rename the type:
-export const mockErrors = [
+export const mockErrors: AccountingError[] = [
{ id: 1, type: AccountingErrorType.EMPLOYEE_MAPPING, error_title: 'Employee mapping error' },
{ id: 2, type: AccountingErrorType.CATEGORY_MAPPING, error_title: 'Category mapping error' },
{ id: 3, type: AccountingErrorType.ACCOUNTING_ERROR, error_title: 'Accounting error' }
-] as Error[];
+];📝 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.
| export const mockErrors = [ | |
| { id: 1, type: AccountingErrorType.EMPLOYEE_MAPPING, error_title: 'Employee mapping error' }, | |
| { id: 2, type: AccountingErrorType.CATEGORY_MAPPING, error_title: 'Category mapping error' }, | |
| { id: 3, type: AccountingErrorType.ACCOUNTING_ERROR, error_title: 'Accounting error' } | |
| ] as Error[]; | |
| export const mockErrors: AccountingError[] = [ | |
| { id: 1, type: AccountingErrorType.EMPLOYEE_MAPPING, error_title: 'Employee mapping error' }, | |
| { id: 2, type: AccountingErrorType.CATEGORY_MAPPING, error_title: 'Category mapping error' }, | |
| { id: 3, type: AccountingErrorType.ACCOUNTING_ERROR, error_title: 'Accounting error' } | |
| ]; |
JustARatherRidiculouslyLongUsername
requested review from
DhaaraniCIT
and removed request for
DhaaraniCIT
Clickup
https://app.clickup.com/t/86cwh86c6
Summary by CodeRabbit
IntacctBaseMappingComponentandIntacctMappingComponentwith new test cases for initialization, category mapping, and auto-mapping functionalities.