Add Unit Tests #2
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Rongbin99
added
READY FOR REVIEWS
READY FOR TESTING
and removed
WORK IN PROGRESS
DO NOT REVIEW
FOR TEST ONLY
Incomplete PR Checklist
labels
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR adds comprehensive unit and integration tests for the backend API server, targeting user authentication, trip planning, and chat functionality. The tests are implemented using Jest and Supertest with proper mocking of external dependencies.
Key changes include:
- Updated Jest and Supertest to latest patch versions for improved testing capabilities
- Added comprehensive test coverage for user authentication flows (signup, login, profile management, password changes)
- Added test coverage for trip planning API with OpenAI service mocking to validate request handling and response generation
Reviewed Changes
Copilot reviewed 4 out of 5 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| package.json | Updated Jest and Supertest dependencies to latest patch versions |
| tests/user.test.js | Comprehensive user authentication API tests with database and auth service mocking |
| tests/plan.test.js | Trip planning API tests with OpenAI service mocking and validation |
| tests/chat.test.js | Chat/trip history API tests with database and image service mocking |
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (3)
tests/user.test.js:85
- The test should expect a specific status code (201 for resource creation) rather than accepting multiple possible codes. This makes the test assertion less precise.
expect([200, 201]).toContain(res.statusCode);
tests/user.test.js:209
- The test should expect a specific status code (typically 200 or 204 for password updates) rather than accepting multiple possible codes. This makes the test assertion less precise.
expect([200, 204]).toContain(res.statusCode);
tests/plan.test.js:77
- The test should have separate test cases for success (200) and failure (503) scenarios rather than accepting both status codes in a single assertion. This would provide better test coverage and clearer test intentions.
expect([200, 503]).toContain(res.statusCode);
Rongbin99
added
TESTING PASSED
No Tests Needed
READY TO MERGE
and removed
TESTING IN PROGRESS
labels
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds comprehensive unit and integration tests for the backend API server, targeting user authentication, trip planning, and chat functionality. The tests are implemented using Jest and Supertest with proper mocking of external dependencies.
Key changes include:
PR CHECKLIST