User Profile Replacement/Removal #9382
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@nihal467 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 20 minutes and 11 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces a comprehensive restructuring of user management components and test suites. The changes focus on consolidating user profile functionality into the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
✅ Deploy Preview for care-ohc ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
- Removed logic to test profile in user creation (already done elsewhere) - Removed ununsed logic in UserProfilePage - Makes uses of logic in ManageUsers instead since it's the same page - Removed UserFacilities (logic related to sidebar for managing facilities/no longer used)
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (8)
cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersProfile.cy.ts (4)
Line range hint
33-33: Update hardcoded URL in beforeEachThe
cy.awaitUrl("/user/profile")still references the old profile route which has been removed.- cy.awaitUrl("/user/profile"); + cy.awaitUrl("/user/details");
37-44: Extract test data to constants or fixturesConsider extracting test data like "Devo", "Doctoro", and date formats to constants or fixtures for better maintainability.
const TEST_DATA = { firstName: "Devo", lastName: "Doctoro", dateFormat: "M/D/YYYY" };
55-91: Improve test organization and readabilityThis test case handles multiple concerns (qualifications, working hours, video link). Consider:
- Breaking it into smaller, focused test cases
- Using test data builders or fixtures
- Extracting repeated patterns into custom commands
Example refactor:
describe('Professional Information', () => { it('should update qualification details', () => { // qualification specific test }); it('should update working hours', () => { // working hours specific test }); it('should update video connect link', () => { // video link specific test }); });
70-71: Consider moving date formatting logic to a helperThe date manipulation logic should be extracted to a helper function for reusability and easier testing.
// utils/dateHelpers.ts export const calculateExperienceDate = (yearsOfExperience: string): string => { const date = dayjs().subtract(parseInt(yearsOfExperience), "year"); return date.format("YYYY-MM-DD"); };src/components/Users/UserSoftwareUpdate.tsx (2)
12-17: Add TypeScript types for better type safetyConsider adding TypeScript interface for the update status state.
+interface UpdateStatus { + isChecking: boolean; + isUpdateAvailable: boolean; +} export default function UserSoftwareUpdate() { - const [updateStatus, setUpdateStatus] = useState({ + const [updateStatus, setUpdateStatus] = useState<UpdateStatus>({ isChecking: false, isUpdateAvailable: false, });
38-71: Enhance accessibility for update status buttonsThe buttons need ARIA labels and roles for better accessibility.
- <Button disabled> + <Button + disabled + aria-label={t("checking_for_update")} + role="status" + > <div className="flex items-center gap-4"> <CareIcon icon="l-sync" className="text-2xl animate-spin" /> {t("checking_for_update")} </div> </Button> - <Button disabled> + <Button + disabled + aria-label={t("update_available")} + role="alert" + > <div className="flex items-center gap-4"> <CareIcon icon="l-exclamation" className="text-2xl text-warning" /> {t("update_available")} </div> </Button> - <Button variant="primary" onClick={checkUpdates}> + <Button + variant="primary" + onClick={checkUpdates} + aria-label={t("check_for_update")} + >cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersCreation.cy.ts (2)
Line range hint
89-127: Consider adding test coverage for new user details page integration.While the user creation test is comprehensive, consider adding assertions to verify:
- Successful redirection to the new user details page after creation
- Proper tab selection in the new interface
userCreationPage.clickSaveUserButton(); cy.wait("@createUser").its("response.statusCode").should("eq", 201); cy.verifyNotification("User added successfully"); +// Verify redirection to user details page +cy.url().should('include', '/user/details'); +// Verify active tab +cy.get('[data-testid="user-details-tab"]').should('have.class', 'active');
Line range hint
129-134: Consider expanding mandatory field validation test.The current test only verifies error messages. Consider adding positive validation cases to ensure the error messages clear correctly when valid data is entered.
userCreationPage.clickSaveUserButton(); cy.get(".error-text", { timeout: 10000 }).should("be.visible"); cy.verifyErrorMessages(EXPECTED_ERROR_MESSAGES); +// Add validation for error message clearance +userCreationPage.typeUserName(username); +cy.contains("Please enter the username").should("not.exist");
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (11)
cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersCreation.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts(0 hunks)cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersProfile.cy.ts(2 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Users/ManageUserPage.ts(3 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Users/UserProfilePage.ts(1 hunks)src/Routers/routes/UserRoutes.tsx(1 hunks)src/components/Users/ManageUsers.tsx(0 hunks)src/components/Users/UserHome.tsx(3 hunks)src/components/Users/UserProfile.tsx(0 hunks)src/components/Users/UserSoftwareUpdate.tsx(1 hunks)src/components/Users/UserSummary.tsx(2 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (3)
- cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts
- src/components/Users/UserProfile.tsx
- src/components/Users/ManageUsers.tsx
🔇 Additional comments (7)
src/components/Users/UserHome.tsx (1)
41-42: LGTM! Clean implementation of user-aware navigation.
The changes effectively handle URL construction and breadcrumb display based on whether the user is viewing their own profile or another user's profile.
Also applies to: 101-105, 132-132
cypress/pageobject/Users/ManageUserPage.ts (1)
153-162: LGTM! Well-structured test helper methods.
The new methods follow best practices:
- Proper scrolling before interactions
- Consistent verification approach
- Clear separation of edit and verify operations
Also applies to: 184-197, 222-226
src/components/Users/UserSoftwareUpdate.tsx (1)
1-10: Verify UpdatableApp integration and implementation
The component relies on UpdatableApp and checkForUpdate from Common components. Let's verify their implementation to ensure proper integration.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the UpdatableApp component since the previous command only showed the checkForUpdate function.
Let me try a different approach to find the UpdatableApp component implementation.
UpdatableApp integration looks properly implemented
The verification shows that both UpdatableApp and checkForUpdate are properly implemented in the Common components:
checkForUpdateis a well-structured async function that handles version checking and update detectionUpdatableAppis a React component that manages update state and integrates with the check functionality- The implementation includes proper error handling, version management via localStorage, and UI feedback
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check implementation of UpdatableApp and checkForUpdate
ast-grep --pattern 'export const checkForUpdate = $_'
ast-grep --pattern 'export default function UpdatableApp($_) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 2300
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for UpdatableApp component implementation and its usage
rg -A 10 "function UpdatableApp" src/components/Common/UpdatableApp.tsx
Length of output: 73
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for UpdatableApp component using different patterns
rg -A 20 "export default.*UpdatableApp" src/components/Common/UpdatableApp.tsx
rg -A 20 "const UpdatableApp" src/components/Common/UpdatableApp.tsx
Length of output: 1230
src/components/Users/UserSummary.tsx (1)
211-216: Verify scope of software update feature
The addition of the software update feature appears to be outside the scope of the PR objectives, which focus on profile page redirection and removal. Please clarify if this is an intentional addition or should be moved to a separate PR.
cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersCreation.cy.ts (3)
9-9: LGTM! Import changes align with profile removal.
The simplified imports reflect the removal of profile-related functionality while maintaining necessary utilities for user creation.
Line range hint 136-147: Verify facility page redirection with new user details page.
The facility page user redirection test should be updated to verify proper navigation to the new user details page interface.
Line range hint 11-57: Verify test data constants against new user details page.
The test data constants and error messages should be verified to ensure they match the new user details page implementation.
✅ Verification successful
Error messages in test suite match the actual form validation
Based on the search results, the error messages defined in the test suite (EXPECTED_ERROR_MESSAGES) match the actual form validation messages used in the codebase:
- The user form validation messages are defined in
src/components/Users/UserFormValidations.tsxandsrc/components/Users/UserAddEditForm.tsx - The error messages cover all required fields:
- User type selection
- Phone number validation
- Username validation
- Date format validation
- Password requirements
- First/Last name validation
- Email validation
- Gender selection
- State/District/Local body selection
The test data constants accurately reflect the validation messages shown to users when form fields are invalid or missing.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for field validations in the new user details component
ast-grep --pattern 'const EXPECTED_ERROR_MESSAGES = [
$$$
]'
# Search for form field definitions
rg -A 5 'interface.*FormValues|type.*FormValues'
Length of output: 1297
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for form validation messages in component files
rg -A 1 "Please select the User Type|Please enter valid phone number|Please enter the username|Please enter date in DD/MM/YYYY format|Password is required|Confirm password is required|First Name is required|Last Name is required|Please enter a valid email address|Please select the Gender|Please select the state|Please select the district|Please select the local body" --type ts --type tsx
# Search for form field validation logic
ast-grep --pattern 'const validate = {
$$$
}'
# Search for form field validation functions
ast-grep --pattern 'function validate$_($$$) {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 528
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for validation messages in all files, fixing the file type flag
rg -A 1 "Please select the User Type|Please enter valid phone number|Please enter the username|Please enter date in DD/MM/YYYY format|Password is required|Confirm password is required|First Name is required|Last Name is required|Please enter a valid email address|Please select the Gender|Please select the state|Please select the district|Please select the local body" --type typescript
# Search for form validation in component files
rg -A 3 "validation|errorMessage|error message" --type typescript src/
# Look for user creation form component
fd -e ts -e tsx "UserCreation" src/
Length of output: 568
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# First find all TypeScript files that might contain validation messages
fd -e ts -e tsx . | xargs rg -l "validation|error|message"
# Find user creation related components and their validation logic
fd -e ts -e tsx . | xargs rg -A 3 "createUser|UserCreation|addUser"
# Search for form field validation patterns in all TypeScript files
fd -e ts -e tsx . | xargs rg -A 2 "required|invalid|Please"
Length of output: 70818
| <> | ||
| <UserColumns | ||
| heading={t("language_selection")} | ||
| note={t("set_your_local_language")} | ||
| Child={LanguageSelector} | ||
| childProps={userColumnsData} | ||
| /> | ||
| <UserColumns | ||
| heading={t("software_update")} | ||
| note={t("check_for_available_update")} | ||
| Child={UserSoftwareUpdate} | ||
| childProps={userColumnsData} | ||
| /> | ||
| </> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Translation keys missing in non-English locales
The software update section's translation keys need to be added to all non-English locale files:
software_updatekey missing in hi.json, kn.json, ml.json, mr.json, ta.jsoncheck_for_available_updatekey missing in hi.json, kn.json, ml.json, mr.json, ta.json
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify translation keys for software update section
The new software update section uses translation keys that need to be verified in the i18n files.
Translation keys are properly defined in English locale but missing in others
The verification shows that both translation keys software_update and check_for_available_update are defined in the English locale file (en.json), but might be missing in other locale files. Let me verify other locales.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if translation keys exist in i18n files
rg -g '*.json' '"software_update":'
rg -g '*.json' '"check_for_available_update":'
Length of output: 232
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# List all locale files
fd -e json -p public/locale/
# Check content of all locale files for these keys
for locale in $(fd -e json -p public/locale/); do
echo "=== $locale ==="
jq '.software_update, .check_for_available_update' "$locale"
done
Length of output: 1443
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Read the readme. Crowdin handles translations for languages other than English. We do not add them via PRs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rithviknishad Understood. We respect your decision to handle non-English translations outside of PRs using Crowdin.
✏️ Learnings added
Learnt from: rithviknishad
PR: ohcnetwork/care_fe#9382
File: src/components/Users/UserSummary.tsx:204-217
Timestamp: 2024-12-23T05:11:53.287Z
Learning: For non-English translations, the team uses Crowdin instead of handling them via PR. Specifically, translation keys like "software_update" and "check_for_available_update" should not be added via PR.
Note: Learnings are effective only in the context of similar code segments. To apply general coding guidelines, please configure review instructions. You can manage existing learnings in the app.
|
👋 Hi, @Jacobjeevan, This message is automatically generated by prince-chrismc/label-merge-conflicts-action so don't hesitate to report issues/improvements there. |
Jacobjeevan
added
needs testing
needs review
and removed
merge conflict
|
👋 Hi, @Jacobjeevan, This message is automatically generated by prince-chrismc/label-merge-conflicts-action so don't hesitate to report issues/improvements there. |
|
@Jacobjeevan check the cypress failure |
Done |
|
👋 Hi, @Jacobjeevan, This message is automatically generated by prince-chrismc/label-merge-conflicts-action so don't hesitate to report issues/improvements there. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- Evaluate both UserProfile.cy.ts and UserManage.cy.ts test files, identify common tests, keep one file, and delete the other.
- Remove any unused functions resulting from the above changes.
- Replace all submit button interactions with the reusable function cy.clickSubmitButton.
- Review the functionality of cy.typeIntoField() in our codebase to understand how a boolean parameter can be passed to clear the input field when required, eliminating the need for separate functions for clearing and inputting data.
- When creating a combination action (e.g., editUserDetails()), first create individual functions for each action and call them using this.functionName() within the combination function.
- Check the command.ts file and use reusable functions for all types of dropdowns and date selections.
|
Why are we holding on to this> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts (1)
Line range hint
347-394: Break down facility linking test into smaller, focused testsThe current test is too complex and tests multiple scenarios. This makes it harder to maintain and debug failures.
Consider breaking it down into these focused test cases:
describe("facility linking", () => { it("should link facility to user without home facility", () => { // Test only the basic facility linking }); it("should set facility as home facility", () => { // Test only the home facility setting }); it("should unlink facility from user", () => { // Test only the facility unlinking }); it("should reflect changes in doctor connect", () => { // Test only the doctor connect visibility }); });
🧹 Nitpick comments (5)
cypress/support/index.ts (1)
55-55: Add a usage note for “formatDate”Consider adding a JSDoc comment or usage note that clarifies the expected format of “rawDate” (e.g., “DDMMYYYY”) so that future developers can avoid confusion when invoking this method.
cypress/pageobject/Users/ManageUserPage.ts (3)
122-134: Add documentation for the skipVerification parameterThe
editPhoneNumbermethod includes askipVerificationparameter, but its purpose and impact aren't documented. Consider adding JSDoc comments to explain when and why this parameter should be used.+ /** + * Edits the phone number field + * @param phoneNumber - The phone number to enter + * @param clearBeforeTyping - Whether to clear the field before typing + * @param skipVerification - Whether to skip phone number format verification + */ editPhoneNumber( phoneNumber: string, clearBeforeTyping = true, skipVerification = true, ) {
154-181: Consider adding TypeScript interfaces for professional infoThe professional info editing methods are well-structured. Consider adding TypeScript interfaces to improve type safety and documentation.
interface ProfessionalInfo { qualification: string; doctorYoE?: string; medicalCouncilRegistration?: string; }
324-334: Consider combining related verification methodsThe verification methods for years of experience and council registration could be combined to reduce code duplication and improve maintainability.
- verifyYoeAndCouncilRegistrationDoesntExist() { - cy.get("#view-years_of_experience").should("not.exist"); - cy.get("#view-doctor_medical_council_registration").should("not.exist"); - } - - verifyYoeAndCouncilRegistrationExist() { - cy.get("#view-years_of_experience").should("be.visible"); - cy.get("#view-doctor_medical_council_registration").should("be.visible"); - } + verifyDoctorSpecificFields(shouldExist: boolean) { + const assertion = shouldExist ? "be.visible" : "not.exist"; + cy.get("#view-years_of_experience").should(assertion); + cy.get("#view-doctor_medical_council_registration").should(assertion); + }cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts (1)
54-85: Consider moving test data to a separate constants fileThe test data setup is well-structured, but moving it to a separate constants file would improve reusability and maintenance.
// testData/userManagement.ts export const TEST_DATA = { basicInfo: { errorMessages: ["First Name is required", "Last Name is required"], modifiedValues: { firstName: "Devo", lastName: "Districto", rawDOB: "11081999", gender: "Female" } } };
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts(10 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Users/ManageUserPage.ts(5 hunks)cypress/support/commands.ts(1 hunks)cypress/support/index.ts(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (2)
cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts (1)
Learnt from: Jacobjeevan
PR: ohcnetwork/care_fe#9080
File: cypress/pageobject/Users/ManageUserPage.ts:181-188
Timestamp: 2024-11-14T10:28:32.680Z
Learning: In the Cypress tests for user management (`cypress/pageobject/Users/ManageUserPage.ts`), the method `verifyDoctorQualification()` is intended to verify qualifications specifically for the Doctor role.
cypress/pageobject/Users/ManageUserPage.ts (1)
Learnt from: Jacobjeevan
PR: ohcnetwork/care_fe#9080
File: cypress/pageobject/Users/ManageUserPage.ts:181-188
Timestamp: 2024-11-14T10:28:32.680Z
Learning: In the Cypress tests for user management (`cypress/pageobject/Users/ManageUserPage.ts`), the method `verifyDoctorQualification()` is intended to verify qualifications specifically for the Doctor role.
🔇 Additional comments (1)
cypress/pageobject/Users/ManageUserPage.ts (1)
68-85: Well-structured refactoring of basic info editing methods!
The code demonstrates good separation of concerns and follows the page object pattern effectively. The helper methods are well-named and focused on single responsibilities.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🔭 Outside diff range comments (3)
cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts (3)
Line range hint
112-180: Reduce duplication in professional info testsThe nurse and doctor professional info tests share similar validation logic. Consider extracting common validation steps into shared functions.
Extract shared logic:
const validateProfessionalInfo = (role: 'nurse' | 'doctor', config: { qualification: string, yoe?: string, registrationNumber?: string }) => { manageUserPage.clickProfessionalInfoViewButton(); if (role === 'doctor') { manageUserPage.verifyYoeAndCouncilRegistrationExist(); } else { manageUserPage.verifyYoeAndCouncilRegistrationDoesntExist(); } // ... rest of the validation logic };
Line range hint
230-248: Add retry logic for password change verificationThe password change verification could be flaky due to timing issues with the notification system.
Add retry logic:
- cy.verifyNotification("Password updated successfully"); + cy.verifyNotification("Password updated successfully", { + timeout: 10000, + retryInterval: 500 + });
Line range hint
262-267: Add API verification for user deletionThe deletion test should verify through both UI and API to ensure complete removal.
Add API verification:
cy.request({ method: 'GET', url: `/api/v1/users/${doctorToDelete}`, failOnStatusCode: false }).then((response) => { expect(response.status).to.equal(404); });
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts (1)
315-344: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionSplit working hours test as previously suggested
As mentioned in the previous review, this test combines multiple concerns and should be split into focused test cases.
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts (2)
4-4: Consider moving test data to fixturesThe test file contains a significant amount of hardcoded test data. Consider moving this data to a fixture file to improve maintainability and reusability.
Create a new fixture file
cypress/fixtures/users.json:{ "users": { "nurse": { "username": "dummynurse1" }, "doctors": { "dev": { "username": "devdoctor", "firstName": "Dev", "lastName": "Doctor" }, "dummy": { "username": "dummydoctor4" } } } }Then update the test file:
+ let testData; + before(() => { + cy.fixture('users.json').then((data) => { + testData = data; + }); + });Also applies to: 12-31
54-87: Enhance test coverage with data-driven testingThe basic info edit test could be more comprehensive by using data-driven testing to cover various scenarios.
Consider using test cases array:
const testCases = [ { scenario: 'valid inputs', firstName: 'Devo', lastName: 'Districto', dob: '11081999', gender: 'Female', expectError: false }, { scenario: 'invalid date', firstName: 'Devo', lastName: 'Districto', dob: '99999999', gender: 'Female', expectError: true } ]; testCases.forEach(({ scenario, firstName, lastName, dob, gender, expectError }) => { it(`handles basic info edit - ${scenario}`, () => { // Test implementation using parameters }); });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts(10 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts (1)
Learnt from: Jacobjeevan
PR: ohcnetwork/care_fe#9080
File: cypress/pageobject/Users/ManageUserPage.ts:181-188
Timestamp: 2024-11-14T10:28:32.680Z
Learning: In the Cypress tests for user management (`cypress/pageobject/Users/ManageUserPage.ts`), the method `verifyDoctorQualification()` is intended to verify qualifications specifically for the Doctor role.
🔇 Additional comments (1)
cypress/e2e/users_spec/UsersManage.cy.ts (1)
Line range hint 269-314: Split skills management tests into focused test cases
Similar to the previous feedback about working hours tests, these tests should be split into focused test cases.
Split into:
- Skill linking verification
- Skill unlinking verification
- Doctor connect reflection verification
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
cypress/support/commands.ts (3)
232-232: Consider making the timeout value configurable.
By assigning a fixed timeout value of 10 seconds, tests may take longer than necessary if the application responds promptly. Consider externalizing this timeout to enable quicker feedback loops and more flexibility in different test environments.
233-235: Validate element readiness before verifying visibility.
While using “.should('be.visible')” is a good practice, occasionally elements are visible but not fully interactive. If any flakiness arises, you might consider combining “.should('be.visible')” with additional checks (e.g., “.should('not.be.disabled')”).
236-238: Verify each assertion in isolation.
Currently, each text in “texts” is checked within the same element container sequentially. For debugging clarity, consider splitting them into distinct test steps or logging which text is being verified. This can help if one assertion fails while verifying multiple texts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientConsultationDischarge.cy.ts (1)
123-123: Expand verification to cover all relevant fields.The test name implies verification of all relevant fields ("Discharge a recovered patient with all relevant fields"), yet only the prescribed medicine is being checked. Consider reintroducing verification for the discharge reason (e.g., "Recovered") and the discharge advice to ensure comprehensive coverage.
Below is a proposed diff to include these fields:
- cy.verifyContentPresence("#discharge-information", [patientMedicine]); + cy.verifyContentPresence("#discharge-information", [ + patientDischargeReason1, + patientDischargeAdvice, + patientMedicine + ]);
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientConsultationDischarge.cy.ts(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientConsultationDischarge.cy.ts (1)
Learnt from: Jacobjeevan
PR: ohcnetwork/care_fe#9145
File: cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientConsultationCreation.cy.ts:93-94
Timestamp: 2024-11-18T10:48:08.501Z
Learning: In `cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientConsultationCreation.cy.ts`, bed capacity verification assertions after patient admission are already being performed elsewhere, so adding them here is unnecessary.
|
LGTM |
nihal467
added
tested
reviewed
|
@nihal467 @Jacobjeevan Your efforts have helped advance digital healthcare and TeleICU systems. 🚀 Thank you for taking the time out to make CARE better. We hope you continue to innovate and contribute; your impact is immense! 🙌 |
Proposed Changes
@ohcnetwork/care-fe-code-reviewers
Merge Checklist
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Chores