Fix: Unexpected failing of vitest in PR workflows (Long Term)

[JaiPannu-IITI]

Closes issue #3600
Related Issue on Develop branch also witnessed on postgres #3582

Change Implemented

• Vitest config providing enough time for long test cases.
• Increase allocated ram by actions to vitest.

Summary by CodeRabbit

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Optimized the timing for asynchronous operations within tests to enhance responsiveness.
  • Extended the maximum execution duration for tests, improving overall test stability.
  • Increased memory allocation for Node.js processes during testing to support larger test executions.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This pull request updates timing configurations in test files. The delay for the debounceWait function in the Actions component's tests is reduced from 300ms to 250ms. Additionally, the Vitest configuration file now sets the test timeout to 30,000ms instead of 10,000ms, allowing tests more time to complete. An environment variable for memory allocation is added in the workflow file. No changes have been made to public interfaces or other functional aspects of the code.

Changes

File(s)	Change Summary
src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx	Modified the debounceWait function parameter from 300ms to 250ms in tests.
vitest.config.ts	Increased the testTimeout setting from 10,000ms to 30,000ms.
.github/workflows/pull-request.yml	Added the environment variable NODE_OPTIONS with value "--max-old-space-size=6144" in the Test-Application job.

Possibly related PRs

• Fix: Unexpected failing of vitest in PR workflows (Urgent) #3601: Involves adjustments to timeout settings in test files, directly relating to the changes in this PR.
• Refactor: src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions from Jest to Vitest #2619: Related to modifications in the same test file (Actions.spec.tsx) for the Actions component.
• refactor: jest to vitest of OrganizationActionItems : fixes #2557 #2773: Connects through the use of the debounceWait function for handling asynchronous operations in tests.

Suggested labels

ignore-sensitive-files-pr

Poem

In a meadow of code, I hop with delight,
Tweaking milliseconds by day and by night.
A quicker debounce, tests now flow free,
With extended timeouts, each case runs smoothly.
Hopping through changes, I munch on each byte!
🐇🌟

---

📜 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 145232b and 17d24b5.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• .github/workflows/pull-request.yml (1 hunks)
• src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx (1 hunks)
• vitest.config.ts (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 GitHub Actions: PR Workflow

.github/workflows/pull-request.yml

[error] 1-1: File is unauthorized to change/delete.

🔇 Additional comments (3)

vitest.config.ts (1)

13-13: LGTM! Increased test timeout to accommodate long-running tests.

The change to increase the test timeout from 10s to 30s is a reasonable solution to handle long-running test cases.

src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx (1)

43-43:

❓ Verification inconclusive

Verify the impact of reducing debounce wait time.

The debounce wait time has been reduced from 300ms to 250ms. While this could make tests run faster, please verify that this reduction doesn't make the tests flaky, especially if the original 300ms was chosen for specific timing requirements.

Run the following script to check if there are other tests using the same debounce wait time that might be affected:

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for other test files using debounceWait
rg -A 2 "debounceWait.*=.*async.*\(.*\).*=>" "src/**/*.spec.{ts,tsx}"

Length of output: 134

---

Action Required: Manually Verify Debounce Wait Impact

The debounce wait time was reduced from 300ms to 250ms, which may speed up tests but could introduce timing issues. Our updated search for additional references to debounceWait in test files did not yield further matches. However, the previous command’s glob pattern might have been too restrictive, so please verify manually on CI to ensure that tests remain stable and do not become flaky with the reduced wait time.

• Verify that none of the tests relying on debounceWait are sensitive to the new 250ms delay.
• Confirm by running tests repeatedly (locally or on CI) to rule out intermittent failures.

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Improved search for references to debounceWait in test files
rg -A 2 "debounceWait.*=.*async.*\(.*\).*=>" --glob "*.[Ss]pec.[Tt]s*"

Length of output: 2787

---

Action: Verify Test Timing Consistency

The file src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx now sets the debounce wait to 250ms, while our search shows that several other test files (e.g., in EventVolunteers, Leaderboard, Invitations, UpcomingEvents, and Groups) still use a default of 300ms. This discrepancy might be intentional for the specific scenarios in the Actions tests, but it could also lead to intermittent failures if the 300ms delay was originally chosen for timing stability.

• Review and confirm if the lower debounce wait of 250ms in Actions is a deliberate change.
• Manually verify by running the full test suite (locally or via CI) to ensure no new flakiness or timing issues arise.
• Consider alignment with other test files if no specific rationale exists for the deviation.

.github/workflows/pull-request.yml (1)

255-255: LGTM! Increased Node.js memory allocation for tests.

The change to increase the maximum old space size to 6144MB is a good solution to handle memory-intensive test cases.

✨ Finishing Touches

• 📝 Generate Docstrings (Beta)

---

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?

❤️ 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.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • 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 generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @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 generate unit testing code.
  • @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.

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. (Beta)
• @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.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx (1)

43-43: LGTM! Consider documenting the rationale for the wait time.

The reduction in debounce wait time from 300ms to 250ms is a safe optimization that helps reduce test execution time while maintaining test stability.

Consider adding a comment to document why 250ms was chosen as the wait time:

+// 250ms provides enough time for debounced events to settle while keeping tests fast
 const debounceWait = async (ms = 250): Promise<void> => {

📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 145232b and 5cde151.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• src/screens/UserPortal/Volunteer/Actions/Actions.spec.tsx (1 hunks)
• vitest.config.ts (1 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)

• GitHub Check: Test Application

🔇 Additional comments (1)

vitest.config.ts (1)

13-13:

❓ Verification inconclusive

LGTM! Consider monitoring test execution times.

The increase in test timeout aligns with the PR objective of fixing failing tests. However, to ensure test performance remains optimal, consider:

1. Monitoring test execution times to identify slow tests.
2. Adding comments for tests that consistently need more time.

Run this script to analyze test execution times:

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Analyze test execution times to identify slow tests.

# Run tests with timing info
npx vitest run --reporter=verbose 2>&1 | rg "^.*\(\d+m?s\)$"

Length of output: 57

---

Test timeout change approved. However, please manually verify test timings.

The updated vitest.config.ts setting increases the global timeout from 10,000ms to 30,000ms, which aligns with the PR objective to address failing tests. However, the automated script to analyze test execution times did not yield any output, suggesting that our current approach might not capture the needed details.

Recommendations:

• Manually verify that test execution times are within expected ranges.
• Consider adjusting the test timing analysis script to ensure it captures and reports timing information effectively.
• Monitor for any tests that consistently approach or exceed the new 30s timeout as an indicator of potential issues.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 85.76%. Comparing base (145232b) to head (17d24b5).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                Coverage Diff                @@
##           develop-postgres    #3685   +/-   ##
=================================================
  Coverage             85.76%   85.76%           
=================================================
  Files                   358      358           
  Lines                  9030     9030           
  Branches               1933     1933           
=================================================
  Hits                   7745     7745           
  Misses                  924      924           
  Partials                361      361           

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

[palisadoes]

@coderabbitai full review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Actions performed

Full review triggered.