Skip to content

Test: src/graphql/types/Organization/creator.ts #3196

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Feb 14, 2025
Merged

Test: src/graphql/types/Organization/creator.ts #3196

merged 10 commits into from
Feb 14, 2025

Conversation

gkbishnoi07
Copy link

@gkbishnoi07 gkbishnoi07 commented Feb 11, 2025

What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Test Implementation and Code Quality Enhancement

Issue Number:
Fixes #3071

If relevant, did you update the documentation?
No documentation update required as this is a test implementation.

Summary
Implementation of unit tests for the organization creator field resolver
Coverage of authentication and authorization scenarios
Testing of edge cases and error handling
Proper typing of test context objects to improve code quality
Implementation of mocking strategies for database interactions

These tests ensure the robust functionality of the venue creator resolver while maintaining high code quality standards.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No

Checklist

CodeRabbit AI Review

  • I have reviewed and addressed all critical issues flagged by CodeRabbit AI
  • I have implemented proper type definitions replacing any types
  • I have documented code structure and test cases clearly

Test Coverage

  • I have written comprehensive tests for the venue creator resolver
  • I have verified that test coverage meets or exceeds 95%
  • I have run the test suite locally and all tests pass

Other information

  • Test implementation follows Vitest testing patterns
  • Includes proper mocking of database interactions
  • Maintains type safety throughout the implementation
  • Follows project coding standards and best practices

Have you read the [contributing guide](https://github.com/PalisadoesFoundation/talawa-api/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)?
Yes


Summary by CodeRabbit

Tests

  • Added a comprehensive suite of tests ensuring robust authentication and authorization when accessing venue creator details.
  • Validated various scenarios, including unauthenticated access, role-based restrictions, and handling of absent or matching creator information.
  • Introduced new type definitions to enhance the structure of the testing context.

Let me know if you need any modifications! 🚀

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Expanded test coverage for organization creator retrieval scenarios by validating user authentication, authorization, and robust error handling, ensuring only authorized users can access information.
    • Enhanced error handling for database connection issues and timeouts, improving overall reliability during concurrent access scenarios.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 11, 2025

Walkthrough

The changes introduce a comprehensive suite of tests for the OrganizationCreatorResolver, enhancing the testing framework for GraphQL resolvers related to organizations. The tests cover authentication and authorization scenarios, ensuring that access to creator information is appropriately restricted based on user roles. Additionally, the resolver logic has been refactored to improve error handling and maintainability, with a focus on user membership and database interactions.

Changes

File Summary
test/.../Organization/creator.test.ts Added a comprehensive suite of tests for OrganizationCreatorResolver, including mock context setup and various authentication scenarios.
src/graphql/types/Organization/creator.ts Introduced OrganizationCreatorResolver function, refactoring inline logic, and enhancing error handling for better granularity.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • palisadoes
✨ 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
🪧 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.

Copy link

Our Pull Request Approval Process

Thanks for contributing!

Testing Your Code

Remember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:

  1. We don't merge PRs with poor code quality.
    1. Follow coding best practices such that CodeRabbit.ai approves your PR.
  2. We don't merge PRs with failed tests.
    1. When tests fail, click on the Details link to learn more.
    2. Write sufficient tests for your changes (CodeCov Patch Test). Your testing level must be better than the target threshold of the repository
    3. Tests may fail if you edit sensitive files. Ask to add the ignore-sensitive-files-pr label if the edits are necessary.
  3. We cannot merge PRs with conflicting files. These must be fixed.

Our policies make our code better.

Reviewers

Do not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
When your PR has been assigned reviewers contact them to get your code reviewed and approved via:

  1. comments in this PR or
  2. our slack channel

Reviewing Your Code

Your reviewer(s) will have the following roles:

  1. arbitrators of future discussions with other contributors about the validity of your changes
  2. point of contact for evaluating the validity of your work
  3. person who verifies matching issues by others that should be closed.
  4. person who gives general guidance in fixing your tests

CONTRIBUTING.md

Read our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:

  1. PRs with issues not assigned to you will be closed by the reviewer
  2. Fix the first comment in the PR so that each issue listed automatically closes

Other

  1. 🎯 Please be considerate of our volunteers' time. Contacting the person who assigned the reviewers is not advised unless they ask for your input. Do not @ the person who did the assignment otherwise.
  2. Read the CONTRIBUTING.md file make

@gkbishnoi07 gkbishnoi07 changed the title Issue Test: src/graphql/types/Organization/creator.ts Feb 11, 2025
Copy link

@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: 4

📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9f1bd57 and cf391c9.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • test/graphql/types/Organization/creator.test.ts (1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
  • GitHub Check: Run tests for talawa api
  • GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (typescript)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
test/graphql/types/Organization/creator.test.ts (1)

1-443: Well-implemented test suite with comprehensive coverage!

The test implementation is thorough and well-structured, covering all major scenarios including authentication, authorization, error handling, and edge cases. The code demonstrates good use of TypeScript features and testing best practices.

@gkbishnoi07
Copy link
Author

@coderabbitai full review

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 11, 2025

✅ Actions performed

Full review triggered.

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot previously approved these changes Feb 11, 2025
Copy link

Our Pull Request Approval Process

Thanks for contributing!

Testing Your Code

Remember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:

  1. We don't merge PRs with poor code quality.
    1. Follow coding best practices such that CodeRabbit.ai approves your PR.
  2. We don't merge PRs with failed tests.
    1. When tests fail, click on the Details link to learn more.
    2. Write sufficient tests for your changes (CodeCov Patch Test). Your testing level must be better than the target threshold of the repository
    3. Tests may fail if you edit sensitive files. Ask to add the ignore-sensitive-files-pr label if the edits are necessary.
  3. We cannot merge PRs with conflicting files. These must be fixed.

Our policies make our code better.

Reviewers

Do not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
When your PR has been assigned reviewers contact them to get your code reviewed and approved via:

  1. comments in this PR or
  2. our slack channel

Reviewing Your Code

Your reviewer(s) will have the following roles:

  1. arbitrators of future discussions with other contributors about the validity of your changes
  2. point of contact for evaluating the validity of your work
  3. person who verifies matching issues by others that should be closed.
  4. person who gives general guidance in fixing your tests

CONTRIBUTING.md

Read our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:

  1. PRs with issues not assigned to you will be closed by the reviewer
  2. Fix the first comment in the PR so that each issue listed automatically closes

Other

  1. 🎯 Please be considerate of our volunteers' time. Contacting the person who assigned the reviewers is not advised unless they ask for your input. Do not @ the person who did the assignment otherwise.
  2. Read the CONTRIBUTING.md file make

Copy link

@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: 7

📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between cf391c9 and 04b0657.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • test/graphql/types/Organization/creator.test.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Actions: Pull request workflow
test/graphql/types/Organization/creator.test.ts

[error] 106-106: Formatter would have printed the following content: avatarMimeType: 'image/avif' | 'image/jpeg' | 'image/png' | 'image/webp' | null


[error] 175-175: Formatter would have printed the following content: } as Partial<Pick<FastifyInstance, 'addHook' | 'decorate' | 'get' | 'post'>>


[error] 226-226: Formatter would have printed the following content: // Early return if organization has no creator


[error] 381-381: Formatter would have printed the following content: await expect(async () => {

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
  • GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (typescript)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
test/graphql/types/Organization/creator.test.ts (2)

40-41: Double-check difference between system user role and membership role
The user role is restricted to "administrator" | "regular", while membership roles include "administrator" | "regular" | "member". This might be intentional, but please verify that an additional "member" user role isn't required, or confirm that the mismatch is expected.

Also applies to: 70-73


200-215: Query logic is clear and robust
The usage of eq from Drizzle ORM to retrieve the current user is straightforward and appears correct.

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot previously approved these changes Feb 11, 2025
Copy link

Our Pull Request Approval Process

Thanks for contributing!

Testing Your Code

Remember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:

  1. We don't merge PRs with poor code quality.
    1. Follow coding best practices such that CodeRabbit.ai approves your PR.
  2. We don't merge PRs with failed tests.
    1. When tests fail, click on the Details link to learn more.
    2. Write sufficient tests for your changes (CodeCov Patch Test). Your testing level must be better than the target threshold of the repository
    3. Tests may fail if you edit sensitive files. Ask to add the ignore-sensitive-files-pr label if the edits are necessary.
  3. We cannot merge PRs with conflicting files. These must be fixed.

Our policies make our code better.

Reviewers

Do not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
When your PR has been assigned reviewers contact them to get your code reviewed and approved via:

  1. comments in this PR or
  2. our slack channel

Reviewing Your Code

Your reviewer(s) will have the following roles:

  1. arbitrators of future discussions with other contributors about the validity of your changes
  2. point of contact for evaluating the validity of your work
  3. person who verifies matching issues by others that should be closed.
  4. person who gives general guidance in fixing your tests

CONTRIBUTING.md

Read our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:

  1. PRs with issues not assigned to you will be closed by the reviewer
  2. Fix the first comment in the PR so that each issue listed automatically closes

Other

  1. 🎯 Please be considerate of our volunteers' time. Contacting the person who assigned the reviewers is not advised unless they ask for your input. Do not @ the person who did the assignment otherwise.
  2. Read the CONTRIBUTING.md file make

Copy link

@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: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 04b0657 and 574e35f.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • test/graphql/types/Organization/creator.test.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Actions: Pull request workflow
test/graphql/types/Organization/creator.test.ts

[error] 180-180: Formatter would have printed the following content: Incorrect formatting in code. Please adjust quotes from single to double.

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
  • GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (typescript)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
test/graphql/types/Organization/creator.test.ts (5)

65-66: Ensure type consistency between User and UserFromDB.

The avatarMimeType field has different type definitions. This inconsistency could lead to type safety issues when converting between the two types.

-	avatarMimeType: string | null;
+	avatarMimeType: "image/avif" | "image/jpeg" | "image/png" | "image/webp" | null;

120-155: Consider more flexible user mocking.

createCompleteMockUser currently returns a user object with largely fixed fields. If additional variations are needed (for example, custom addresses or phone numbers), accepting optional overrides for any field might simplify test maintenance and readability.


380-396: Test case for non-member user looks good.

Thanks for implementing a dedicated test for the case where the user has no organization membership. This ensures proper authorization checks within the resolver.


190-270: Overall, resolveCreator function appears robust.

Your approach to authentication, membership checks, and error handling is thoroughly covered. Returning null for missing creator IDs and handling unexpected scenarios with explicit error messages ensures maintainable and reliable logic.


180-180: ⚠️ Potential issue

Fix pipeline formatting error.

The pipeline indicates that the quotes should be adjusted from single to double to maintain project-wide consistency. This discrepancy causes a formatting failure.

Apply this diff to fix the quotes:

-} as Partial<Pick<FastifyInstance, 'addHook' | 'decorate' | 'get' | 'post'>>,
+} as Partial<Pick<FastifyInstance, "addHook" | "decorate" | "get" | "post">>,

Likely an incorrect or invalid review comment.

🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: Pull request workflow

[error] 180-180: Formatter would have printed the following content: Incorrect formatting in code. Please adjust quotes from single to double.

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot previously approved these changes Feb 11, 2025
Copy link

Our Pull Request Approval Process

Thanks for contributing!

Testing Your Code

Remember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:

  1. We don't merge PRs with poor code quality.
    1. Follow coding best practices such that CodeRabbit.ai approves your PR.
  2. We don't merge PRs with failed tests.
    1. When tests fail, click on the Details link to learn more.
    2. Write sufficient tests for your changes (CodeCov Patch Test). Your testing level must be better than the target threshold of the repository
    3. Tests may fail if you edit sensitive files. Ask to add the ignore-sensitive-files-pr label if the edits are necessary.
  3. We cannot merge PRs with conflicting files. These must be fixed.

Our policies make our code better.

Reviewers

Do not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
When your PR has been assigned reviewers contact them to get your code reviewed and approved via:

  1. comments in this PR or
  2. our slack channel

Reviewing Your Code

Your reviewer(s) will have the following roles:

  1. arbitrators of future discussions with other contributors about the validity of your changes
  2. point of contact for evaluating the validity of your work
  3. person who verifies matching issues by others that should be closed.
  4. person who gives general guidance in fixing your tests

CONTRIBUTING.md

Read our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:

  1. PRs with issues not assigned to you will be closed by the reviewer
  2. Fix the first comment in the PR so that each issue listed automatically closes

Other

  1. 🎯 Please be considerate of our volunteers' time. Contacting the person who assigned the reviewers is not advised unless they ask for your input. Do not @ the person who did the assignment otherwise.
  2. Read the CONTRIBUTING.md file make

Copy link

@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: 2

♻️ Duplicate comments (3)
test/graphql/types/Organization/creator.test.ts (3)

202-206: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Use a more type-safe approach for mocking FastifyReply.

Similar to the FastifyInstance mock, the FastifyReply mock uses type assertion that bypasses TypeScript's type checking.

Apply this diff to create a partial mock that implements only the required methods:

-	reply: {
-		code: vi.fn(),
-		send: vi.fn(),
-		header: vi.fn(),
-	} as unknown as FastifyReply,
+	reply: {
+		code: vi.fn(),
+		send: vi.fn(),
+		header: vi.fn(),
+	} as Partial<Pick<FastifyReply, 'code' | 'send' | 'header'>>,

192-201: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Use a more type-safe approach for mocking FastifyInstance.

The current implementation uses type assertion (as unknown as FastifyInstance), which bypasses TypeScript's type checking.

Apply this diff to create a partial mock that implements only the required methods:

-	app: {
-		addHook: vi.fn(),
-		decorate: vi.fn(),
-		get: vi.fn(),
-		post: vi.fn(),
-		server: {} as FastifyInstance["server"],
-		pluginName: "",
-		prefix: "",
-		version: "",
-	} as unknown as FastifyInstance,
+	app: {
+		addHook: vi.fn(),
+		decorate: vi.fn(),
+		get: vi.fn(),
+		post: vi.fn(),
+		server: {} as FastifyInstance["server"],
+		pluginName: "",
+		prefix: "",
+		version: "",
+	} as Partial<Pick<FastifyInstance, 'addHook' | 'decorate' | 'get' | 'post' | 'server' | 'pluginName' | 'prefix' | 'version'>>,

58-90: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Consider using a more specific type for avatarMimeType.

The User interface defines avatarMimeType as string | null, while UserFromDB defines it with specific MIME types. This inconsistency could lead to type safety issues.

Apply this diff to align the types:

-	avatarMimeType: string | null;
+	avatarMimeType: "image/avif" | "image/jpeg" | "image/png" | "image/webp" | null;
📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 574e35f and d3d2701.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • test/graphql/types/Organization/creator.test.ts (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Actions: Pull request workflow
test/graphql/types/Organization/creator.test.ts

[warning] 1-1: Import statements could be sorted.


[warning] 3-3: Formatter would have printed the following content.


[error] 1-1: Some errors were emitted while running checks.

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
  • GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (typescript)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
test/graphql/types/Organization/creator.test.ts (1)

320-473: LGTM! Comprehensive test coverage.

The test suite provides excellent coverage of various scenarios:

  • Authentication checks
  • Authorization for different user roles
  • Error handling for missing users
  • Edge cases like organizations without creators
  • Multiple organization memberships

Copy link

Our Pull Request Approval Process

Thanks for contributing!

Testing Your Code

Remember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:

  1. We don't merge PRs with poor code quality.
    1. Follow coding best practices such that CodeRabbit.ai approves your PR.
  2. We don't merge PRs with failed tests.
    1. When tests fail, click on the Details link to learn more.
    2. Write sufficient tests for your changes (CodeCov Patch Test). Your testing level must be better than the target threshold of the repository
    3. Tests may fail if you edit sensitive files. Ask to add the ignore-sensitive-files-pr label if the edits are necessary.
  3. We cannot merge PRs with conflicting files. These must be fixed.

Our policies make our code better.

Reviewers

Do not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
When your PR has been assigned reviewers contact them to get your code reviewed and approved via:

  1. comments in this PR or
  2. our slack channel

Reviewing Your Code

Your reviewer(s) will have the following roles:

  1. arbitrators of future discussions with other contributors about the validity of your changes
  2. point of contact for evaluating the validity of your work
  3. person who verifies matching issues by others that should be closed.
  4. person who gives general guidance in fixing your tests

CONTRIBUTING.md

Read our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:

  1. PRs with issues not assigned to you will be closed by the reviewer
  2. Fix the first comment in the PR so that each issue listed automatically closes

Other

  1. 🎯 Please be considerate of our volunteers' time. Contacting the person who assigned the reviewers is not advised unless they ask for your input. Do not @ the person who did the assignment otherwise.
  2. Read the CONTRIBUTING.md file make

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot previously approved these changes Feb 11, 2025
@gkbishnoi07
Copy link
Author

@palisadoes ready for review

@gkbishnoi07
Copy link
Author

@palisadoes please review this

Copy link
Contributor

@palisadoes palisadoes left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@gkbishnoi07
Copy link
Author

The code coverage report is showing no change. Please fix.

This is a new test file created before testing for src/graphql/types/Organization/creator.ts was unavailable.

@PalisadoesFoundation PalisadoesFoundation deleted a comment from codecov bot Feb 12, 2025
Copy link

Our Pull Request Approval Process

Thanks for contributing!

Testing Your Code

Remember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:

  1. We don't merge PRs with poor code quality.
    1. Follow coding best practices such that CodeRabbit.ai approves your PR.
  2. We don't merge PRs with failed tests.
    1. When tests fail, click on the Details link to learn more.
    2. Write sufficient tests for your changes (CodeCov Patch Test). Your testing level must be better than the target threshold of the repository
    3. Tests may fail if you edit sensitive files. Ask to add the ignore-sensitive-files-pr label if the edits are necessary.
  3. We cannot merge PRs with conflicting files. These must be fixed.

Our policies make our code better.

Reviewers

Do not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
When your PR has been assigned reviewers contact them to get your code reviewed and approved via:

  1. comments in this PR or
  2. our slack channel

Reviewing Your Code

Your reviewer(s) will have the following roles:

  1. arbitrators of future discussions with other contributors about the validity of your changes
  2. point of contact for evaluating the validity of your work
  3. person who verifies matching issues by others that should be closed.
  4. person who gives general guidance in fixing your tests

CONTRIBUTING.md

Read our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:

  1. PRs with issues not assigned to you will be closed by the reviewer
  2. Fix the first comment in the PR so that each issue listed automatically closes

Other

  1. 🎯 Please be considerate of our volunteers' time. Contacting the person who assigned the reviewers is not advised unless they ask for your input. Do not @ the person who did the assignment otherwise.
  2. Read the CONTRIBUTING.md file make

@palisadoes
Copy link
Contributor

The report is still showing no coverage

@gkbishnoi07
Copy link
Author

The report is still showing no coverage

let me check again

can you please assign me talawa-admin issue#3565

Copy link

@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: 2

📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ce4e7fe and 66f8201.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/graphql/types/Organization/creator.ts (1 hunks)
  • test/graphql/types/Organization/creator.test.ts (1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
  • GitHub Check: Run tests for talawa api
  • GitHub Check: Analyse Code With CodeQL (typescript)
🔇 Additional comments (7)
test/graphql/types/Organization/creator.test.ts (5)

23-30: Provide flexible overrides in your MockUser type for better test coverage.
This type is currently formed with fixed fields. Consider allowing optional overrides (e.g., optional address or phone fields) if future tests need more varied user data.


32-144: Authentication & Authorization tests are robust.
All critical paths—unauthenticated, unauthorized, system admin, and organization admin—are tested thoroughly. Great use of mock data to validate different role scenarios.


146-190: Creator retrieval tests successfully cover null creator and missing creator user cases.
Returning null when creatorId is null aligns with best practices for GraphQL. The logic for throwing an unexpected error when the user is missing ensures data integrity checks.


191-224: Error handling tests comprehensively address database errors.
Both connection failures and timeouts are handled, ensuring robust coverage of potential runtime exceptions.


225-374: Concurrent access tests effectively confirm organization data integrity.
Validation includes empty results and race condition-like scenarios. The inclusion of log statements to warn about unexpected states is beneficial for debugging.

src/graphql/types/Organization/creator.ts (2)

7-97: Guard against undefined ctx.currentClient.user when isAuthenticated is true.
Although isAuthenticated usually implies a user exists, consider a safety check or assertion in case user is unexpectedly null or missing.

For example:

if (!ctx.currentClient.isAuthenticated || !ctx.currentClient.user) {
  throw new TalawaGraphQLError({
    extensions: {
      code: "unauthenticated",
    },
  });
}

98-106: Field implementation is clear and consistent with the OrganizationCreatorResolver.
Defining creator as a separate resolver fosters modularity and supports thorough unit testing. No further changes needed here.

@gkbishnoi07
Copy link
Author

@palisadoes please review this PRs

@gkbishnoi07
Copy link
Author

@palisadoes please review

@gkbishnoi07
Copy link
Author

gkbishnoi07 commented Feb 13, 2025

@palisadoes

Screenshot_20250214_040653_Chrome

@PalisadoesFoundation PalisadoesFoundation deleted a comment from github-actions bot Feb 14, 2025
@PalisadoesFoundation PalisadoesFoundation deleted a comment from github-actions bot Feb 14, 2025
@PalisadoesFoundation PalisadoesFoundation deleted a comment from github-actions bot Feb 14, 2025
@PalisadoesFoundation PalisadoesFoundation deleted a comment from codecov bot Feb 14, 2025
Copy link

Our Pull Request Approval Process

Thanks for contributing!

Testing Your Code

Remember, your PRs won't be reviewed until these criteria are met:

  1. We don't merge PRs with poor code quality.
    1. Follow coding best practices such that CodeRabbit.ai approves your PR.
  2. We don't merge PRs with failed tests.
    1. When tests fail, click on the Details link to learn more.
    2. Write sufficient tests for your changes (CodeCov Patch Test). Your testing level must be better than the target threshold of the repository
    3. Tests may fail if you edit sensitive files. Ask to add the ignore-sensitive-files-pr label if the edits are necessary.
  3. We cannot merge PRs with conflicting files. These must be fixed.

Our policies make our code better.

Reviewers

Do not assign reviewers. Our Queue Monitors will review your PR and assign them.
When your PR has been assigned reviewers contact them to get your code reviewed and approved via:

  1. comments in this PR or
  2. our slack channel

Reviewing Your Code

Your reviewer(s) will have the following roles:

  1. arbitrators of future discussions with other contributors about the validity of your changes
  2. point of contact for evaluating the validity of your work
  3. person who verifies matching issues by others that should be closed.
  4. person who gives general guidance in fixing your tests

CONTRIBUTING.md

Read our CONTRIBUTING.md file. Most importantly:

  1. PRs with issues not assigned to you will be closed by the reviewer
  2. Fix the first comment in the PR so that each issue listed automatically closes

Other

  1. 🎯 Please be considerate of our volunteers' time. Contacting the person who assigned the reviewers is not advised unless they ask for your input. Do not @ the person who did the assignment otherwise.
  2. Read the CONTRIBUTING.md file make

Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 14, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 43.90%. Comparing base (7fa0ae3) to head (1c6f501).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop-postgres.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                 Coverage Diff                  @@
##           develop-postgres    #3196      +/-   ##
====================================================
+ Coverage             43.68%   43.90%   +0.21%     
====================================================
  Files                   455      455              
  Lines                 33628    33644      +16     
  Branches                647      664      +17     
====================================================
+ Hits                  14692    14772      +80     
+ Misses                18932    18868      -64     
  Partials                  4        4              

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

@palisadoes palisadoes merged commit 51c11d2 into PalisadoesFoundation:develop-postgres Feb 14, 2025
18 checks passed
This was referenced Feb 23, 2025
@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot mentioned this pull request Mar 16, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants