Adding unit tests to improve the code coverage of jest unit tests in ZAP #1652

brdandu · 2025-10-01T17:46:16Z

JIRA: WT-668

gemini-code-assist · 2025-10-01T17:46:41Z

Summary of Changes

Hello @brdandu, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request focuses on a substantial effort to enhance the overall quality and reliability of the ZAP application by adding a comprehensive suite of unit tests. The changes span across different layers of the application, from front-end Vuex actions and UI components to back-end database interactions and REST API endpoints, ensuring that core functionalities are thoroughly validated. Minor code adjustments were also made to facilitate testing and improve code resilience.

Highlights

Expanded Unit Test Coverage: Significantly increased unit test coverage across various parts of the application, including Vuex actions, database queries, REST API handlers, UI components, and startup utilities.
New Test Files and Cases: Introduced new test files like test/actions.test.js and added numerous test cases to existing files to validate functionality and improve code robustness.
Jest Configuration Update: Updated jest.config.js to include additional paths in coveragePathIgnorePatterns and set the testEnvironment to jsdom for better browser-like testing.
Code Robustness Improvements: Added null checks in src-electron/generator/helper-zcl.js and refined SQL query ordering in src-electron/db/query-command.js for improved stability.
Exports for Testability: Exported several internal functions from src-electron/generator/matter/app/zap-templates/common/attributes/Accessors.js, src-electron/main-process/startup.js, and src-electron/rest/user-data.js to enable more comprehensive unit testing.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	`/gemini review`	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	`/gemini summary`	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	`/gemini help`	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

gemini-code-assist

Code Review

This pull request significantly improves the Jest unit test coverage for ZAP, which is a valuable contribution. The changes include adding new test files for actions, queries, and UI components, as well as minor code modifications to facilitate testing by exporting functions. My review focuses on the quality and structure of the new tests. I've identified some areas for improvement, such as removing duplicated tests, strengthening weak assertions, and refactoring overly complex test cases to enhance maintainability and readability. Overall, this is a solid step towards a more robust and well-tested codebase.

test/actions.test.js

test/query.test.js

test/ui.test.js

test/actions.test.js

test/ui.test.js

JIRA: WT-668

…f jest and cypress coverage for total analysis and updating sonar qube to use the combination to fix the overall test coverage being reported JIRA: WT-668

…coverage goes below 80% - Adding the zap-combine-reports.js process to the github workflows so that the CI fails everytime the code coverage goes below 80% JIRA: WT-668

JIRA: WT-668

ethanzhouyc

Approved with comments. Improve ZAP over 80% is huge achievement!

ethanzhouyc · 2025-10-03T19:26:10Z

.github/workflows/release.yml

-      - run: npm run report
+      - run: npm run version-stamp
+      - run: npm rebuild canvas --update-binary
+      - run: npm rebuild libxmljs --update-binary


Why we are adding these new commands here from line 150-154

ethanzhouyc · 2025-10-03T19:57:41Z

test/actions.test.js

+            }
+          ]
+        })
+      }


Are all tests in this file just dummy test filled with non-real data for boosting coverage? We do not need to care about what actually is going on in the test function right?

Can you explain how doing this helps make SonarQube believe the coverage is improved?

ethanzhouyc · 2025-10-03T20:00:42Z

src-script/zap-combine-reports.js

+function checkCoverageThresholds(coverageSummaryPath) {
+  if (!fsExtra.existsSync(coverageSummaryPath)) {
+    console.error('❌ Coverage summary not found')
+    process.exit(1)


When is this function called? Will exit here break any process for the user or Sonarqube unexpectedly?

ethanzhouyc · 2025-10-03T20:04:24Z

test/feature.test.js

+    'SELECT CLUSTER_REF FROM FEATURE LIMIT 1'
+  )
+  expect(featureRow).toBeDefined()
+  const clusterId = featureRow.CLUSTER_REF


onOffCluster.clusterId

Could use this clusterId initiated in a previous test and test if it returns non-empty feature list

ethanzhouyc · 2025-10-03T20:06:29Z

test/feature.test.js

+
+test('checkIfConformanceDataExist returns a boolean', async () => {
+  const result = await queryFeature.checkIfConformanceDataExist(db)
+  expect(typeof result).toBe('boolean')


Should return true in current ZAP database as we have conformance data defined.

see if expect(result).toBeTruthy() can pass?

If it pass, add it there

ethanzhouyc · 2025-10-03T20:15:01Z

quasar.conf.js

+              esModules: true
+            })
+            .before('vue-loader')
+        }


Can you explain why we add istanbul dependency here? What does it do?

ethanzhouyc · 2025-10-03T20:18:41Z

test/query.test.js

+        json: jest.fn()
+      }
+      const handler =
+        require('../src-electron/rest/user-data').httpPostDuplicateEndpointType(


Can we import require('../src-electron/rest/user-data') at head of the file? I've seen lots of repetitive imports in the middle of the file

ethanzhouyc · 2025-10-03T20:19:08Z

test/query.test.js

+      const resAttr = { status: jest.fn().mockReturnThis(), json: jest.fn() }
+      const handlerAttr = require('../src-electron/rest/user-data')
+        .post.find((e) => e.uri === restApi.uri.attributeUpdate)
+        .callback(db)


ethanzhouyc · 2025-10-03T20:20:52Z

test/query.test.js

+      const resCmd = { status: jest.fn().mockReturnThis(), json: jest.fn() }
+      const handlerCmd = require('../src-electron/rest/user-data')
+        .post.find((e) => e.uri === restApi.uri.commandUpdate)
+        .callback(db)


I see this structure of handlerCmd being defined many times. Maybe turn it into a helper function?

function testAPIHandlers(apiKey, req, expectedResponseObj)

This could make adding new handlers in the future into this test much easier.

ethanzhouyc · 2025-10-03T20:29:30Z

test/ui.test.js

+      })
+      expect(wrapper.html().length).toBeGreaterThan(10)
+    },
+    timeout.short()


Saw lots of repetitive code here for all vue pages. Not sure if it's good to write a helper function and call them here too. Just like helpers for the API handlers I commented before.

Adding unit tests to improve the code coverage of jest unit tests in ZAP

dd7b2bd

JIRA: WT-668

brdandu requested review from dhchandw and ethanzhouyc October 1, 2025 17:46

brdandu requested review from paulr34 and tecimovic as code owners October 1, 2025 17:46

gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Oct 1, 2025

View reviewed changes

brdandu added 4 commits October 1, 2025 15:39

ADding more tests

0191521

JIRA: WT-668

- Fixing the cypress test coverage analysis, fixing the combination o…

1545d55

…f jest and cypress coverage for total analysis and updating sonar qube to use the combination to fix the overall test coverage being reported JIRA: WT-668

- Having the combine script throw an error out if percentage of test …

9b52b98

…coverage goes below 80% - Adding the zap-combine-reports.js process to the github workflows so that the CI fails everytime the code coverage goes below 80% JIRA: WT-668

More cleanup

809f5de

JIRA: WT-668

ethanzhouyc approved these changes Oct 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

paulr34 approved these changes Oct 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

Adding unit tests to improve the code coverage of jest unit tests in ZAP #1652

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Adding unit tests to improve the code coverage of jest unit tests in ZAP #1652

Uh oh!

Conversation

brdandu commented Oct 1, 2025

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot commented Oct 1, 2025

Summary of Changes

Highlights

Footnotes

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ethanzhouyc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants