Skip to content

Conversation

@RizWaaN3024
Copy link
Contributor

Proposed change

Resolves #1805

This PR adds comprehensive unit tests for the ChapterMap component to ensure all essential functionality is properly tested and validated.

Test Coverage Added:

  • Rendering: Component renders correctly with required props and handles empty data
  • Map Initialization: Leaflet map setup, tile layers, and marker clustering
  • Markers: Creation, configuration, and handling of different geolocation formats
  • Popups: Popup creation and content rendering
  • Conditional Logic: showLocal prop behavior for local vs global views
  • Component Updates: Prop changes and data updates
  • Edge Cases: Null/undefined geolocation, custom styling
  • Accessibility: Proper DOM structure and attributes

Technical Implementation:

  • Mocked Leaflet library and related dependencies for isolated unit testing
  • Used @testing-library/react following existing project patterns
  • Comprehensive edge case coverage with proper TypeScript typing
  • ESLint compliant code structure

The tests follow the existing patterns established in the codebase and provide robust coverage for all component functionality, ensuring reliable behavior across different scenarios and prop combinations.

Checklist

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

- Add complete test coverage for ChapterMap component rendering
- Test map initialization with Leaflet configuration
- Verify marker creation and clustering functionality
- Test popup behavior and content rendering
- Cover showLocal prop conditional logic and local view behavior
- Test component updates and prop changes
- Handle edge cases: empty data, missing geolocation
- Ensure accessibility and custom styling works correctly
- Mock Leaflet library and related dependencies for isolated testing

Resolves #[1805]
@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jul 26, 2025

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Added comprehensive unit tests for the ChapterMap component, covering rendering, map initialization, marker and popup behavior, local view logic, updates, edge cases, and accessibility.

"""

Walkthrough

A new unit test suite for the ChapterMap React component has been introduced. The tests utilize Jest and React Testing Library, with extensive mocking of Leaflet dependencies, to verify rendering, map initialization, marker and popup logic, local view handling, updates, edge cases, and accessibility.

Changes

File(s) Change Summary
frontend/tests/unit/components/ChapterMap.test.tsx Added comprehensive unit tests for the ChapterMap component, including mocks for Leaflet modules.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

Possibly related PRs

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 53a7226 and 404668b.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • frontend/__tests__/unit/components/ChapterMap.test.tsx (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • frontend/tests/unit/components/ChapterMap.test.tsx
✨ 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
🪧 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.

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.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3d0153f and 53a7226.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • frontend/__tests__/unit/components/ChapterMap.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.
frontend/__tests__/unit/components/ChapterMap.test.tsx (1)

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.

🔇 Additional comments (9)
frontend/__tests__/unit/components/ChapterMap.test.tsx (9)

1-56: LGTM! Comprehensive and well-structured mock setup.

The imports and mock configuration are well-organized. The Leaflet mocks cover all necessary functionality with appropriate chainable methods, and the window.location mocking enables proper navigation testing.


57-103: Well-structured test data and setup.

The mock chapter data is comprehensive and realistic, covering all required fields. The beforeEach hook properly clears mocks to prevent test interference.


105-121: Solid rendering tests covering essential scenarios.

The tests appropriately verify DOM structure, attributes, and styling, including the important edge case of empty data.


123-162: Comprehensive map initialization testing.

The tests thoroughly verify Leaflet map setup, including correct configuration parameters, tile layer addition, and marker cluster group creation. The use of require() for accessing mocked Leaflet is appropriate.


164-210: Excellent marker testing with good coverage of edge cases.

The tests thoroughly verify marker creation, icon configuration, and cluster group integration. The fallback geolocation logic test is particularly valuable for ensuring robustness.


233-258: Comprehensive local view testing with good edge case coverage.

The tests thoroughly verify local view behavior, including proper handling of the edge case where showLocal is true but data is empty.


260-275: Good component update testing ensuring proper cleanup.

The tests appropriately verify that markers are cleared on data changes and views are updated when props change, which is crucial for preventing memory leaks and ensuring correct behavior.


277-298: Excellent edge case coverage for robustness.

The tests effectively verify handling of null/undefined geolocation data and custom styling, which are important for preventing runtime errors and ensuring flexibility.


300-308: Basic accessibility testing is appropriate for this component.

The test verifies essential DOM structure for accessibility. While more comprehensive accessibility testing could be beneficial, the current approach is reasonable given the complexity of testing map component accessibility.

@RizWaaN3024
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @arkid15r @kasya
Can you please review the PR??

Copy link
Collaborator

@kasya kasya left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@RizWaaN3024 thanks for working on these!
They seem to pass fine 👍🏼
However, I noticed that there's this error now in the terminal.
Screenshot 2025-07-27 at 10 54 49 AM
This does not fail the test, but messes up the logs. Could you look into how to get rid of this?

@RizWaaN3024
Copy link
Contributor Author

@RizWaaN3024 thanks for working on these! They seem to pass fine 👍🏼 However, I noticed that there's this error now in the terminal. Screenshot 2025-07-27 at 10 54 49 AM This does not fail the test, but messes up the logs. Could you look into how to get rid of this?

Sure @kasya will work on it and update asap!!!

@RizWaaN3024
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @kasya
I have updated the changes.
Ready for review.

@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

Copy link
Collaborator

@kasya kasya left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice work!

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

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add tests for <ChapterMap> component

2 participants