test: Add comprehensive unit tests for UserCard component

[RizWaaN3024]

Proposed change

Resolves #[1919]

This PR adds comprehensive unit tests for the UserCard React component to ensure robust test coverage and prevent regressions. The test suite validates all component functionality including rendering logic, conditional display, user interactions, accessibility compliance, and edge case handling.

What's included:

• 30+ test cases organized into logical test suites
• Complete coverage of all essential test requirements from the issue checklist
• Proper mocking of external dependencies (Next.js Image, HeroUI Button, FontAwesome icons, millify)
• Type-safe implementations avoiding any types throughout
• Accessibility testing ensuring proper roles, labels, and semantic structure
• Edge case validation for invalid inputs, negative values, and large numbers
• Event handling tests for user interactions and callback verification

Test Categories:

• ✅ Essential Rendering Tests (minimal & full props)
• ✅ Conditional Rendering Logic (avatar, company info, stats display)
• ✅ Event Handling (button clicks and callbacks)
• ✅ Text and Content Rendering (names, labels, alt text)
• ✅ Edge Cases and Invalid Inputs (undefined values, negative numbers)
• ✅ Accessibility (button roles, heading structure, image alt text)
• ✅ DOM Structure and Styling (CSS classes, custom styling)
• ✅ Default Values and Fallbacks (empty states, fallback icons)
• ✅ Data Processing (URL manipulation, number formatting)

The tests follow the project's established patterns and coding standards, ensuring maintainability and consistency with existing test suites.

Checklist

• I've read and followed the contributing guidelines.
• I've run make check-test locally; all checks and tests passed.

[coderabbitai]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Added comprehensive unit tests for the UserCard component, covering rendering, conditional display, event handling, accessibility, styling, and data processing. Edge cases and accessibility features are also validated to ensure robust component behavior.

Walkthrough

A new unit test suite for the UserCard React component has been introduced. The tests comprehensively verify rendering, conditional logic, event handling, accessibility, styling, and data processing, using mocks for external dependencies and covering both expected and edge case behaviors.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Change Summary
UserCard Component Unit Tests frontend/__tests__/unit/components/UserCard.test.tsx	Added a detailed test suite for the UserCard component, covering rendering, logic, events, accessibility, and edge cases.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~7 minutes

Possibly related issues

• Add tests for <UserCard> component #1919: This PR adds a comprehensive test suite for the UserCard component, directly addressing the issue's request for unit tests with similar coverage.

Suggested labels

frontend, frontend-tests

Suggested reviewers

• arkid15r
• kasya

Note

⚡️ Unit Test Generation is now available in beta!

Learn more here, or try it out under "Finishing Touches" below.

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5bd70f1 and 8c8362e.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• frontend/__tests__/unit/components/UserCard.test.tsx (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (2)

📓 Common learnings

Learnt from: Rajgupta36
PR: OWASP/Nest#1717
File: frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/createProgram.test.tsx:70-86
Timestamp: 2025-07-12T17:36:57.255Z
Learning: When testing React page components that use mocked form components, validation logic should be tested at the form component level, not the page level. Page-level tests should focus on authentication, role checking, submission handling, and navigation logic.

Learnt from: ahmedxgouda
PR: OWASP/Nest#1714
File: frontend/src/components/ProjectTypeDashboardCard.tsx:8-12
Timestamp: 2025-07-08T17:07:50.988Z
Learning: In the OWASP/Nest project, union types for component props are not necessary when they would require creating separate type definitions. The project prefers inline prop type definitions even for props with specific string values, maintaining consistency with the single-use component prop pattern.

Learnt from: ahmedxgouda
PR: OWASP/Nest#1633
File: frontend/src/components/HealthMetrics.tsx:30-30
Timestamp: 2025-06-20T16:12:59.256Z
Learning: In the DetailsCard component (frontend/src/components/CardDetailsPage.tsx), there's a safety check that ensures HealthMetrics component is only rendered when healthMetricsData exists and has at least one element: `healthMetricsData && healthMetricsData.length > 0`. This makes accessing data[0] safe within the HealthMetrics component.

Learnt from: ahmedxgouda
PR: OWASP/Nest#1633
File: frontend/src/components/HealthMetrics.tsx:30-30
Timestamp: 2025-06-20T16:12:59.256Z
Learning: In the DetailsCard component (frontend/src/components/CardDetailsPage.tsx), there's a length check before rendering HealthMetrics: `healthMetricsData.length > 0`. This ensures that when HealthMetrics is rendered, the data array has at least one element, making accessing data[0] safe within the HealthMetrics component.

Learnt from: Rajgupta36
PR: OWASP/Nest#1717
File: frontend/src/app/mentorship/programs/[programKey]/edit/page.tsx:90-128
Timestamp: 2025-07-12T17:14:28.536Z
Learning: Both ProgramForm (programCard.tsx) and ModuleForm (mainmoduleCard.tsx) components already implement HTML validation using the `required` attribute on form fields. The browser's native validation prevents form submission and displays error messages when required fields are empty, eliminating the need for additional JavaScript validation before GraphQL mutations.

frontend/__tests__/unit/components/UserCard.test.tsx (4)

Learnt from: Rajgupta36
PR: #1717
File: frontend/tests/unit/pages/createProgram.test.tsx:70-86
Timestamp: 2025-07-12T17:36:57.255Z
Learning: When testing React page components that use mocked form components, validation logic should be tested at the form component level, not the page level. Page-level tests should focus on authentication, role checking, submission handling, and navigation logic.

Learnt from: ahmedxgouda
PR: #1633
File: frontend/src/components/HealthMetrics.tsx:30-30
Timestamp: 2025-06-20T16:12:59.256Z
Learning: In the DetailsCard component (frontend/src/components/CardDetailsPage.tsx), there's a length check before rendering HealthMetrics: healthMetricsData.length > 0. This ensures that when HealthMetrics is rendered, the data array has at least one element, making accessing data[0] safe within the HealthMetrics component.

Learnt from: ahmedxgouda
PR: #1633
File: frontend/src/components/HealthMetrics.tsx:30-30
Timestamp: 2025-06-20T16:12:59.256Z
Learning: In the DetailsCard component (frontend/src/components/CardDetailsPage.tsx), there's a safety check that ensures HealthMetrics component is only rendered when healthMetricsData exists and has at least one element: healthMetricsData && healthMetricsData.length > 0. This makes accessing data[0] safe within the HealthMetrics component.

Learnt from: Rajgupta36
PR: #1717
File: frontend/src/app/mentorship/programs/[programKey]/edit/page.tsx:90-128
Timestamp: 2025-07-12T17:14:28.536Z
Learning: Both ProgramForm (programCard.tsx) and ModuleForm (mainmoduleCard.tsx) components already implement HTML validation using the required attribute on form fields. The browser's native validation prevents form submission and displays error messages when required fields are empty, eliminating the need for additional JavaScript validation before GraphQL mutations.

🔇 Additional comments (12)

frontend/__tests__/unit/components/UserCard.test.tsx (12)

1-4: LGTM! Well-structured imports following TypeScript best practices.

The imports are clean and properly organized, using type-only import for UserCardProps which is excellent for TypeScript optimization.

---

6-75: Excellent mock implementations with proper TypeScript typing.

The mocks are comprehensive and well-designed:

• next/image mock preserves all essential props and styling behavior
• @heroui/button mock correctly maps onPress to onClick for testing
• FontAwesome mock uses data-testid for reliable test targeting
• millify mock replicates actual formatting logic for accurate assertions

The TypeScript typing on all mocks ensures type safety throughout the tests.

---

77-101: Solid test setup with comprehensive default props and proper cleanup.

The test configuration is well-structured:

• defaultProps provides complete coverage of all UserCardProps fields
• beforeEach ensures test isolation by clearing mocks
• afterEach prevents DOM pollution with proper cleanup
• Mock function setup enables reliable event testing

---

103-141: Comprehensive rendering tests covering minimal and maximal scenarios.

The test cases effectively verify:

• Basic component rendering with essential props
• Full prop rendering including avatar URL manipulation (&s=160 appending)
• Number formatting through millify integration (1500 → 1.5k)
• Proper DOM element presence and attributes

The tests establish a solid foundation for component functionality verification.

---

143-239: Excellent conditional rendering tests covering complex business logic.

This suite thoroughly tests the component's intelligent rendering behavior:

• Avatar image vs. default icon logic based on prop presence
• Priority cascade system (company → location → email) with proper exclusivity
• Conditional display of metrics only when values are positive
• Combined scenarios testing multiple conditional elements together

The tests ensure the component's decision-making logic works correctly across all scenarios.

---

241-250: Simple but effective event handling test.

The test properly verifies button interaction:

• Uses semantic role-based element selection
• Simulates realistic user interaction with fireEvent.click
• Confirms callback execution with precise assertion

While concise, it adequately covers the component's primary interactive behavior.

---

252-278: Good coverage of text content and accessibility features.

The tests verify essential text rendering behavior:

• Dynamic username display
• Intelligent alt text (using name with fallback to "user")
• Button label rendering consistency

These tests ensure both functionality and basic accessibility compliance.

---

280-305: Comprehensive edge case testing with minor typing concern.

The tests effectively cover boundary conditions and invalid inputs:

• Undefined value handling ensures component robustness
• Negative value filtering prevents incorrect display
• Large number formatting validation (1.5M, 2.5k) confirms millify integration

The type assertion undefined as unknown as string on line 282 is necessary for testing but indicates the component should handle this case more gracefully in production.

---

307-327: Excellent accessibility testing following best practices.

The accessibility tests demonstrate strong attention to inclusive design:

• Button role verification ensures keyboard and screen reader compatibility
• Avatar alt text testing guarantees image accessibility
• Semantic heading structure validation maintains proper document hierarchy
• Role-based queries align with accessibility-first testing methodology

These tests ensure the component meets accessibility standards.

---

329-343: Good coverage of styling and CSS class application.

The tests verify the component's styling system:

• Custom className prop override functionality
• Default Tailwind classes application (group, flex, flex-col, etc.)
• Proper CSS class inheritance and merging behavior

This ensures styling flexibility while maintaining consistent defaults.

---

345-365: Thorough testing of fallback behavior and empty states.

The tests ensure graceful degradation when data is missing:

• Default user icon display when avatar is unavailable
• Clean rendering when secondary information is empty
• Proper zero-value metric hiding to avoid visual clutter

These tests verify the component provides a good user experience even with minimal data.

---

367-382: Solid data processing verification with specific transformation testing.

The tests confirm proper data manipulation:

• Avatar URL size parameter appending (&s=160) for consistent image dimensions
• Millify precision formatting validation (1234 → 1.2k, 5678 → 5.7k)
• Input data transformation verification before rendering

These tests ensure data integrity throughout the component's processing pipeline.

✨ Finishing Touches

• 📝 Generate Docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 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.
  • Explain this complex logic.
  • 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 explain this code block.
  • @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 explain its main purpose.
  • @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.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

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 generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
• @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
• @coderabbitai generate unit tests to generate unit tests for this 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.

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.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[kasya]

Well done 👍🏼