Project Dasbored Drop Down Test case has been made

[SOHAMPAL23]

#1865

Essential Test Coverage Checklist

• Renders successfully with minimal required props
• Conditional rendering logic
• Prop-based behavior – different props affect output
• Event handling – simulate user actions and verify callbacks
• State changes / internal logic
• Default values and fallbacks
• Text and content rendering
• Handles edge cases and invalid inputs
• Accessibility roles and labels
• DOM structure / classNames / styles

Test cases are made According to it

[coderabbitai]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Added comprehensive unit tests for the Projects Dashboard dropdown, covering rendering of sections/items, selection modes (single/multiple), ordering icon states, and displayed labels.
  • Verifies keyboard and mouse interactions, re-render updates, and resilience with empty or undefined selections.
  • Includes ARIA role checks to reinforce accessibility.
  • Improves reliability and confidence with no changes to existing UI behavior.

Walkthrough

Adds a new unit test suite for ProjectsDashboardDropDown, mocking icon and Dropdown components, validating rendering across sections/items, selection modes, ordering states, accessibility roles, event handling (click/keyboard), dynamic updates on prop changes, and edge cases for empty selections/sections.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Unit tests frontend/__tests__/unit/components/ProjectsDashboardDropDown.test.tsx	Introduces comprehensive tests covering rendering, selectionMode and isOrdering behaviors, icon state changes, accessibility roles/structure, event handling (click/keyboard), re-render updates, and edge cases with empty inputs.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

Possibly related issues

• Add tests for <ProjectsDashboardDropDown> component #1865 — Adds unit tests for ProjectsDashboardDropDown, aligning with the issue’s objective to cover this component.

Suggested reviewers

• arkid15r

✨ 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.
  • 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.
• 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 the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

Support

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

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR/Issue comments)

Type @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

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.

Status, Documentation and Community

• Visit our Status Page to check the current availability of CodeRabbit.
• 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.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 5

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/ProjectDashboredDropDown.test.tsx (2)

1-4: File path contains a typo.

The filename contains "Dashbored" instead of "Dashboard" - this inconsistency could cause confusion when maintaining tests or locating them. Consider renaming to match the component name.

-frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/ProjectDashboredDropDown.test.tsx
+frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/ProjectDashboardDropDown.test.tsx

---

574-577: DOM structure test assumes specific class implementation.

The test directly checks for Tailwind CSS classes, which couples the test to the implementation details and may break if styling approaches change.

-      // Check that the flex column structure exists
-      const flexContainer = screen.getByText('Filter').parentElement
-      expect(flexContainer).toHaveClass('flex', 'flex-col', 'items-center')
+      // Check that the container has proper layout attributes
+      const flexContainer = screen.getByText('Filter').parentElement
+      expect(flexContainer).toHaveAttribute('class')
+      expect(flexContainer?.className).toMatch(/flex/)

📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9df6fae and 9dbb4db.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/ProjectDashboredDropDown.test.tsx (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (10)

frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/ProjectDashboredDropDown.test.tsx (10)

6-15: Mock implementation looks good but could be more robust.

The FontAwesome mock correctly extracts the icon name for testing. However, the fallback to 'default' might mask issues where icons are undefined.

---

17-89: Comprehensive HeroUI component mocking with good test coverage support.

The mock implementations provide excellent testability with data attributes and event simulation. The DropdownItem mock cleverly uses children text as the key for testing purposes.

---

92-116: Well-structured default props for comprehensive testing.

The props cover all the essential scenarios including sections, icons, and selection modes. Good use of typed selectionMode.

---

141-154: Good basic rendering test but could verify more structural elements.

The test verifies the component renders without throwing and checks for key elements. Consider also verifying that sections are rendered.

---

183-209: Good conditional rendering logic tests.

These tests properly verify the icon changes based on isOrdering state and demonstrate good understanding of the component's behavior.

---

316-340: State change test effectively demonstrates dynamic icon updates.

Good use of rerender to test state-dependent behavior. The test correctly verifies that icon attributes change based on selectedKeys.

---

357-368: Edge case test for undefined values is valuable.

This test ensures the component gracefully handles undefined props, which is important for robustness.

---

407-415: Item count verification is good but content checks could be more robust.

The test correctly verifies the number of items and their content, providing good coverage of the rendering functionality.

---

91-579: Comprehensive test suite with excellent coverage.

The test suite covers all the essential checklist items mentioned in the PR objectives. The structure is well-organized with clear describe blocks for different testing aspects. The tests demonstrate good understanding of React Testing Library best practices and provide thorough coverage of component functionality.

---

168-179: Icon fallback test has incorrect expectation.

The test expects a 'default' data-icon when icon is undefined, but this contradicts the mock implementation which would use icon?.iconName || 'default'. When icon is undefined, iconName would also be undefined.

-      const icon = screen.getByTestId('fontawesome-icon')
-      expect(icon).toHaveAttribute('data-icon', 'default')
+      expect(screen.queryByTestId('fontawesome-icon')).not.toBeInTheDocument()

Or if the component always renders an icon:

-      expect(icon).toHaveAttribute('data-icon', 'default')
+      expect(icon).toHaveAttribute('data-icon', 'undefined')

Likely an incorrect or invalid review comment.

[kasya]

@SOHAMPAL23 I thought I left this review yesterday, but can't find it now.. 🤔
You need to run make check locally and address all the issues it finds.
Right now you have these that I can see, where calling except conditionally it the biggest one:

[kasya]

@SOHAMPAL23 I don't see any new commits since I requested changes 2 days ago. Please update the code as suggested above before requesting next review 👌🏼

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
6 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

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

frontend/__tests__/unit/components/ProjectsDashboardDropDown.test.tsx (1)

142-163: Good test lifecycle management.

The beforeEach and afterEach setup properly manages mocks and suppresses irrelevant console warnings. However, consider being more selective with console error suppression.

Consider making the console error suppression more specific to avoid masking legitimate errors:

-    jest.spyOn(console, 'error').mockImplementation((...args) => {
-      const message = typeof args[0] === 'string' ? args[0] : String(args[0] || '')
-      if (
-        message.includes('Warning: ReactDOM.render is no longer supported') ||
-        message.includes('Warning: You are importing createRoot') ||
-        message.includes('Warning: React.createFactory')
-      ) {
-        return
-      }
-      // For test environment, we can ignore other console errors
-      return
-    })
+    jest.spyOn(console, 'error').mockImplementation((...args) => {
+      const message = typeof args[0] === 'string' ? args[0] : String(args[0] || '')
+      const ignoredWarnings = [
+        'Warning: ReactDOM.render is no longer supported',
+        'Warning: You are importing createRoot',
+        'Warning: React.createFactory'
+      ]
+      
+      if (ignoredWarnings.some(warning => message.includes(warning))) {
+        return
+      }
+      
+      // Re-throw other console errors to avoid masking real issues
+      console.warn('Suppressed console error in test:', ...args)
+    })

📜 Review details

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

💡 Knowledge Base configuration:

• MCP integration is disabled by default for public repositories
• Jira integration is disabled by default for public repositories
• Linear integration is disabled by default for public repositories

You can enable these sources in your CodeRabbit configuration.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2a08a64 and 686e077.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

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

🔇 Additional comments (13)

frontend/__tests__/unit/components/ProjectsDashboardDropDown.test.tsx (13)

1-15: LGTM! Well-structured test setup and imports.

The imports are comprehensive and appropriate for testing a React component with FontAwesome icons and HeroUI components. The FontAwesome mock implementation is clean and will properly handle icon testing scenarios.

---

17-111: Excellent comprehensive mocking strategy for HeroUI components.

The mock implementations are well-designed with proper event handling, accessibility attributes, and data attributes that enable thorough testing. The keyboard event handling in both DropdownMenu and DropdownItem is particularly well done.

---

113-138: Well-structured test data with good coverage.

The defaultProps object provides comprehensive test scenarios covering different sections, selection modes, and component states. The data structure matches what would be expected for a real dropdown component.

---

165-192: Comprehensive rendering tests with good edge case coverage.

The tests properly verify both the presence and absence of icons based on props, which is important for UI consistency.

---

194-247: Excellent conditional rendering logic testing.

These tests thoroughly cover the different icon states based on the isOrdering prop and properly test both the presence and absence of selected labels.

---

249-287: Good prop-driven behavior validation.

The tests effectively verify that different props produce the expected UI changes, particularly for selection modes and button display text.

---

289-347: Thorough event handling tests with both mouse and keyboard interactions.

The tests cover click events, keyboard activation, and multiple interactions. The use of selectedLabels={[]} to avoid text conflicts shows good attention to testing detail.

---

349-375: Good state change testing with rerender.

This test properly validates that the component responds correctly to prop changes, specifically the ordering icon based on selectedKeys.

---

377-418: Excellent edge case handling.

These tests ensure the component gracefully handles empty arrays, undefined values, and other edge cases that commonly cause runtime errors.

---

420-459: Comprehensive content rendering validation.

The tests verify that all expected text content is rendered correctly, including section titles, dropdown items, and button text.

---

461-511: Robust invalid input handling tests.

These tests ensure the component doesn't crash with various invalid or edge case inputs, which is crucial for production stability.

---

513-555: Excellent accessibility testing coverage.

The tests verify proper ARIA roles, attributes, and structure for screen readers. This is essential for ensuring the component is accessible to all users.

---

557-618: Verified Tailwind classes match component implementation.

The <div> in ProjectsDashboardDropDown.tsx uses className="flex flex-col items-center", matching the test’s expectations. No changes required.

[kasya]

@SOHAMPAL23 Hi! I updated your PR with some changes and wanted to point out some things.
First of all - pelase pay more attention to your naming. The component you were testing is called ProjectsDashboardDropDown, and not ProjectDashboredDropDown. You mistyped it twice, in the branch and in the commit message, so I assume it's not just a typo.

Second thing I noticed - you placed your tests into pages folder, even though you were testing a component and we have a perfectly ready to use components folder :)
So again - pay more attention to details.

And last thing - please run make check before pushing your changes - this will cover all checks, linting etc.

[SOHAMPAL23]

@kasya Thanks for the help . I will make sure to remember the things you told me in this PR .So that When I further contribute .It would help me to deal with it

Thank You