chore: Updating tests to the masking to ensure date formats are covered

[dpitcock]

Updating tests to the masking utils

This pull request adds more comprehensive tests for the useMask hook in the masked-input component. The new tests cover the following scenarios:

Date Masks

• Handling of different date formats (slashed, ISO)
• Validation and auto-completion for day, month, and year segments
• Handling of separators in date strings

Time Masks

• Validation and auto-completion different segments
• Handling of different separators (:, -, /)
• Handling of partial time inputs

General Improvements

• Refactored the test setup to use a more parameterized approach, making it easier to add new mask types in the future
• Added tests to ensure the correct behavior when the maximum value for a segment is reached
• Improved the handling of invalid input values, ensuring the hook returns a valid value even when the initial input is invalid

These changes ensure that the useMask hook can handle a wider range of date and time formats, and that the masking functionality is thoroughly tested across various use cases.

Related links, issue #, if available: n/a

How has this been tested?

Review checklist

The following items are to be evaluated by the author(s) and the reviewer(s).

Correctness

• Changes include appropriate documentation updates.
• Changes are backward-compatible if not indicated, see CONTRIBUTING.md.
• Changes do not include unsupported browser features, see CONTRIBUTING.md.
• Changes were manually tested for accessibility, see accessibility guidelines.

Security

• If the code handles URLs: all URLs are validated through the checkSafeUrl function.

Testing

• Changes are covered with new/existing unit tests?
• Changes are covered with new/existing integration tests?

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.58%. Comparing base (50922ce) to head (073a267).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3530      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.54%   96.58%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         805      805              
  Lines       23446    23455       +9     
  Branches     8165     7750     -415     
==========================================
+ Hits        22637    22653      +16     
+ Misses        802      795       -7     
  Partials        7        7              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[dpitcock]

This is not the easiest code to read, but I couldn't think of a better way that encompasses a test case for each segment. It looks ugly here, but in the test breakdown it all makes sense

[gethinwebster]

I think overall the test logic here is too complex to be valuable and maintainable in the long term: we almost need tests for the tests... Instead I would suggest trying to create some real-world examples and using those, as that will be much easier to understand and maintain over time.

[gethinwebster]

(if I was adding new functionality, I would have no idea where to start within this test logic to add new tests)

[dpitcock]

Thanks for the confirmation. Yea we might even need tests for the tests for the tests... I will do more like I've done below.