Header Component #1881
Header Component #1881
Conversation
Summary by CodeRabbit
WalkthroughA new unit test suite for the Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Note ⚡️ Unit Test Generation is now available in beta!Learn more here, or try it out under "Finishing Touches" below. 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yaml 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests
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. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed 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)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/Header.test.tsx(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (2)
📓 Common learnings
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: 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/pages/Header.test.tsx (2)
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: Rajgupta36
PR: #1717
File: frontend/src/app/mentorship/programs/page.tsx:59-61
Timestamp: 2025-07-13T11:29:25.245Z
Learning: In Next.js 13+ app router, components with the 'use client' directive run entirely on the client side and don't require window object existence checks or SSR hydration considerations. Direct access to window.location and other browser APIs is safe in client components.
🔇 Additional comments (7)
frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/Header.test.tsx (7)
1-6: Clean and comprehensive import setup.The imports include all necessary testing utilities and dependencies for testing a Next.js React component with authentication.
7-146: Comprehensive mocking strategy with good isolation.The mock implementations effectively isolate the Header component from its dependencies while preserving testable behavior. The use of test IDs and proper prop forwarding enables reliable testing.
244-277: Active navigation tests demonstrate good testing practices.The implemented navigation tests properly verify dropdown rendering, active states, and link attributes. The use of
mockUsePathnameand semantic queries follows best practices.However, consider re-enabling the commented logo and branding tests for comprehensive coverage.
279-385: Excellent mobile menu test coverage.The mobile menu tests are comprehensive and well-implemented, covering:
- Toggle functionality with proper async handling
- Icon state changes
- Content rendering verification
- Integration with navigation components
The proper use of
act()and semantic queries demonstrates good React testing practices.
387-501: Strong focus on integration and accessibility testing.These test sections excellently cover:
- Component integration verification
- Event listener lifecycle management
- Comprehensive accessibility features (roles, ARIA attributes, screen reader text)
The emphasis on accessibility testing and semantic queries aligns with inclusive design principles.
551-611: Excellent edge case and state management coverage.The edge case testing (undefined pathname, rapid clicks) and state management verification demonstrate thorough consideration of potential failure modes and user interactions.
648-676: Well-structured snapshot testing.The snapshot tests appropriately cover different component states (auth enabled/disabled, active navigation, mobile menu states) which helps prevent unintended UI regressions.
|
@SOHAMPAL23 could you address the coderabbitai's comments first? |
|
@arkid15r Sure Working on it |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/Header.test.tsx (1)
161-176: Consider more robust element selection strategies.The mobile menu helper functions rely on specific CSS class patterns (
translate-x-0,-translate-x-full) which makes tests brittle to styling changes. Consider using semantic queries or data attributes instead.// Instead of class-based selection, consider: const findMobileMenu = () => { - return document.querySelector('[class*="fixed"][class*="inset-y-0"][class*="left-0"]') + return screen.queryByRole('navigation', { name: /mobile menu/i }) || + screen.queryByTestId('mobile-menu') } const isMobileMenuOpen = () => { - const menu = findMobileMenu() - return menu && menu.className.includes('translate-x-0') + const menu = findMobileMenu() + return menu && menu.getAttribute('aria-expanded') === 'true' }
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/Header.test.tsx (3)
44-48: Remove redundant icon mappingThe comment indicates that 'times' was updated to 'xmark', but both are still present in the iconMap. Consider removing the deprecated 'times' mapping to avoid confusion.
const iconMap: { [key: string]: string } = { 'bars': 'icon-bars', - 'xmark': 'icon-xmark', // Updated from 'times' to 'xmark' based on error output - 'times': 'icon-times' + 'xmark': 'icon-xmark' }
356-358: Simplify icon check after removing deprecated mappingOnce the 'times' icon mapping is removed from the mock, this check can be simplified to only look for 'xmark'.
- // Check for close icon - use xmark instead of times based on error output - const closeIcon = screen.queryByTestId('icon-xmark') || screen.queryByTestId('icon-times') + const closeIcon = screen.queryByTestId('icon-xmark')
468-484: Improve window resize test assertionThe resize test only checks that no errors are thrown, but doesn't verify the expected behavior. Consider asserting what should happen when the window is resized.
it('handles window resize events', async () => { renderWithSession(<Header isGitHubAuthEnabled={true} />) // Open mobile menu first const toggleButton = screen.getByRole('button', { name: /open main menu/i }) await act(async () => { fireEvent.click(toggleButton) }) + expect(isMobileMenuOpen()).toBe(true) + + // Change window width to desktop size + window.innerWidth = 1024 + // Simulate resize event await act(async () => { window.dispatchEvent(new Event('resize')) }) - // Test passes if no errors are thrown - expect(true).toBe(true) + // Verify expected behavior (e.g., menu closes on desktop resize) + // This depends on the actual Header component implementation })
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/Header.test.tsx(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧠 Learnings (2)
📓 Common learnings
Learnt from: adithya-naik
PR: OWASP/Nest#1894
File: frontend/src/components/TopContributorsList.tsx:74-74
Timestamp: 2025-07-28T14:51:14.736Z
Learning: In the OWASP/Nest project, the maintainer adithya-naik prefers not to create separate components for code that's only used in two specific cases, following the YAGNI principle to avoid over-engineering when the duplication is limited and manageable.
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/pages/Header.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: codic-yeeshu
PR: #1444
File: frontend/src/components/NavDropDown.tsx:0-0
Timestamp: 2025-04-30T13:41:20.846Z
Learning: When implementing dropdown menus or similar interactive components, always include proper accessibility features: ARIA attributes (aria-expanded, aria-haspopup, aria-controls), keyboard navigation support (Enter, Space, Escape keys), and mechanisms to close dropdowns when clicking outside.
Learnt from: Rajgupta36
PR: #1717
File: frontend/src/app/mentorship/programs/page.tsx:59-61
Timestamp: 2025-07-13T11:29:25.245Z
Learning: In Next.js 13+ app router, components with the 'use client' directive run entirely on the client side and don't require window object existence checks or SSR hydration considerations. Direct access to window.location and other browser APIs is safe in client components.
Learnt from: Rajgupta36
PR: #1717
File: frontend/src/components/ModuleCard.tsx:53-55
Timestamp: 2025-07-13T07:31:06.511Z
Learning: In Next.js 13+ app router, useRouter from 'next/navigation' does not provide asPath or query properties. Use useParams to extract route parameters and usePathname to get the current pathname instead.
🔇 Additional comments (1)
frontend/__tests__/unit/pages/Header.test.tsx (1)
1-714: Well-structured and comprehensive test suiteThis test file demonstrates excellent testing practices with thorough coverage of the Header component's functionality, including accessibility, edge cases, and integration with Next.js. The test organization is clear and logical.
Key strengths:
- Comprehensive mocking setup
- Good accessibility testing with aria attributes
- Proper async handling with act()
- Edge case coverage (rapid clicks, missing data)
- Integration tests for Next.js components
Areas for improvement have been noted in specific comments above, primarily around reducing brittleness by avoiding CSS class-based selectors.
|
@arkid15r Can you review this as I have resolved all the Issue in the code |
What about other mandatory check from https://github.com/OWASP/Nest/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md (run |
|
@arkid15r I will surely look into this |
|
Proposed change
#1811
This pull request introduces comprehensive test coverage for the
Header. The tests ensure the component renders correctly, handles props and events as expected, and meets accessibility and styling standards. The checklist below outlines the key areas covered.Checklist