Cherry-pick <Button /> and <Progress /> commits from #668 #734
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces comprehensive test coverage for the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (6)
src/components/ui/Button/tests/Button.test.tsx (6)
7-11: Basic render test is properly set up.The test correctly ensures that the Button text is rendered. For completeness, consider verifying the button’s
role="button"attribute if that’s a requirement in your codebase or design guidelines.
13-17: Consider adding a test for the default button type.While the test confirms that
type="submit"is set correctly, it may be worthwhile to verify the default type ("button") if omitted.Here’s a minimal snippet to achieve that:
+ test('renders button with default type by default', () => { + render(<Button>button</Button>); + const button = screen.getByText('button'); + expect(button).toHaveAttribute('type', 'button'); + });
19-23: Color attribute test is valid, but consider edge values.Currently, the test ensures the custom color is applied. As a good practice, you might also test unexpected color values or rely on TypeScript type checks for color validation.
25-29: Test coverage for different variants is good.It’s helpful to see the
outlinevariant tested. Optionally, consider testing other supported variants (e.g.,filled,ghost) to ensure a more comprehensive test matrix.
31-35: Size attribute test is valid, but consider broader coverage.You may want to verify other valid sizes (e.g.,
medium,large) and any boundary conditions (e.g., invalid or omitted size).
37-44: The click handler test is well-written.Verifying handler calls is a crucial part of UI testing. Optionally, also consider testing keyboard interactions (e.g., pressing Enter or Space) to ensure accessibility.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
src/components/ui/Button/tests/Button.test.tsx(1 hunks)src/components/ui/Progress/Progress.tsx(1 hunks)src/components/ui/Progress/fragments/ProgressIndicator.tsx(1 hunks)src/components/ui/Progress/fragments/ProgressRoot.tsx(1 hunks)src/components/ui/Progress/tests/Progress.test.tsx(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (11)
src/components/ui/Progress/fragments/ProgressRoot.tsx (2)
2-2: No concerns regarding this import.
The addition ofPropsWithChildrenwill allow you to handle components with child elements gracefully. Thanks for keeping the types clear.
9-9: Good approach for composability.
ExtendingPartial<ProgressProps>andPropsWithChildrenhelps keep props flexible while allowing child elements to be nested. This is a suitable design choice for a compound component.src/components/ui/Progress/Progress.tsx (2)
1-1: Importing React is fine.
Since this file relies on JSX transforms and references React directly, this import is appropriate and consistent.
8-8: Simplified interface is well-structured.
RemovingPropsWithChildrenclarifies that the mainProgresscomponent no longer requires direct child elements within its own props. This is a solid approach to reduce confusion, especially now thatProgressRoothandles children.src/components/ui/Progress/fragments/ProgressIndicator.tsx (2)
3-3: No issues with the new import.
ReferencingCOMPONENT_NAMEis tidy here, and it avoids duplicating constants.
8-10: Interface reduction improves clarity.
SeparatingIndicatorPropsfromProgressPropsensures the component has only the properties it needs. This focuses the interface on label rendering and class names, improving maintainability.src/components/ui/Progress/tests/Progress.test.tsx (3)
1-3: Clear and comprehensive imports.
Using React testing library is a good choice for verifying DOM behavior. No concerns here.
4-4: Logical test organization.
Importing theProgresscomponent directly matches typical test organization, which is straightforward and consistent.
6-31: Robust test coverage confirmed.
- Verifies presence of the progress bar.
- Checks clamping behavior at min and max values.
- Validates behavior when
minValue>maxValue.- Confirms dynamic binding of
value.All these scenarios ensure a thorough check of the progress functionality. Great job!
src/components/ui/Button/tests/Button.test.tsx (2)
1-4: All imports look correct.The testing library and userEvent imports are appropriate for UI tests, and React is correctly imported.
5-6: Direct and clear import of theButtoncomponent.No issues noted here. It’s good to see that the test explicitly points to the
Buttoncomponent within the same directory structure.
kotAPI
added
the
automerge
2 participants
Cherry-pick Button and Progress component commits from #668
In particular, test and minor fixes for the following three components:
<Button /><Progress />a. Remove unnecessary props
Summary by CodeRabbit
Tests
Buttoncomponent to validate rendering and functionality.Progresscomponent, covering various scenarios like value clamping and rendering.Refactor
Progresscomponent interfaces to simplify prop handling.ProgressIndicatorandProgressRootcomponent interfaces for improved type definitions, including support for child components inProgressRoot.