I am writing test case for a react chat application, we are using amazon-connect-chatjs library for that so this library providing few apis like session.onConnectionEstablished and session.onMessage so on, in this apis we are writing few logic based on that component will render accordingly.
so I want to mock for example session.onConnectionEstablished and pass inside that method or api so it pass through our logic that will render particular component and I will write test cases for that component
which rendered , Any idea how to do this. please see the logic below
import 'amazon-connect-chatjs'
const chat = ()=>{
const [userName setUserName] = useState('')
/* initial setup to initiate amazon-connect-chatjs */
connect.ChatSession.setGlobalConfig({
loggerConfig: {
logger: {
debug: (msg) => console.debug(msg),
info: (msg) => console.info(msg),
warn: (msg) => console.warn(msg),
error: (msg) => console.error(msg)
},
level: connect.ChatSession.LogLevel.WARN,
},
region: "us-east-1",
});
const customerChatSession = connect.ChatSession.create({
chatDetails: { // REQUIRED
contactId: "...", // REQUIRED
participantId: "...", // REQUIRED
participantToken: "...", // REQUIRED
},
options: {
region: "us-east-1",
`connect.ChatSession.setGlobalConfig()`
},
type: connect.ChatSession.SessionTypes.CUSTOMER, // REQUIRED
});
customerChatSession.create().then((response)=>{
return response;
}
)
customerChatSession.onConnectionEstablished(()=>{
setLoaderMessage('connecting...')
setUserName('true')
})
{{userName && <MessageList>}}
}
Note: by giving mock data I can pass required details to chatjs library and I getting response from customerChatSession.create().then((response)=>{ return response; }
but after that I kind of stuck how to mock
customerChatSession.onConnectionEstablished and pass through that method if it pass, it sets the useState which will render the component so i can test whether the component is rendering or not
I am not sure whether mocking is write approach or any other way to do this
Thanks
Related
When using Apollo client, I find it quite tedious to manually update the cache for every mutation that requires an immediate UI update. I therefore decided to try to make a custom hook which updates the cache automatically.
The hook works but it seems a little "hacky" and I'm worried it might mess with the normal functioning of the cache. So I just wanted to ask if this hook seems like it should work ok?
Here's the code (where mutationName is the actual graphql mutation name and fieldName is the original graphql query name corresponding to the mutation):
export const useMutationWithCacheUpdate = (
mutation,
mutationName,
fieldName
) => {
const [createMutation, { data, loading, error }] = useMutation(mutation, {
update(cache, { data }) {
data = data[mutationName];
cache.modify({
fields: {
[fieldName]: (existingItems = []) => {
const newItemRef = cache.writeFragment({
data: data,
fragment: gql`
fragment newItem on ${fieldName} {
id
type
}
`,
});
return [...existingItems, newItemRef];
},
},
});
},
});
return [createMutation, { data, loading, error }];
};
Consider the following code within gatsby-config.js:
module.exports = {
plugins: [
{
resolve: `gatsby-source-fetch`,
options: {
name: `brands`,
type: `brands`,
url: `${dynamicURL}`, // This is the part I need to be dynamic at run/build time.
method: `get`,
axiosConfig: {
headers: { Accept: "text/csv" },
},
saveTo: `${__dirname}/src/data/brands-summary.csv`,
createNodes: false,
},
},
],
}
As you can see above, the URL for the source plugin is something that I need to be dynamic. The reason for this is that the file URL will change every time it's updated in the CMS. I need to query the CMS for that field and get its CDN URL before passing to the plugin.
I tried adding the following to the top of gatsby-config.js but I'm getting errors.
const axios = require("axios")
let dynamicURL = ""
const getBrands = async () => {
return await axios({
method: "get",
url: "https://some-proxy-url-that-returns-json-with-the-csv-file-url",
})
}
;(async () => {
const brands = await getBrands()
dynamicURL = brands.data.summary.url
})()
I'm assuming this doesn't work because the config is not waiting for the request above to resolve and therefore, all we get is a blank URL.
Is there any better way to do this? I can't simply supply the source plugin with a fixed/known URL ahead of time.
Any help greatly appreciated. I'm normally a Vue.js guy but having to work with React/Gatsby and so I'm not entirely familiar with it.
I had similar requirement where I need to set siteId of gatsby-plugin-matomo dynamically by fetching data from async api. After searching a lot of documentation of gatsby build lifecycle, I found a solution.
Here is my approach -
gatsby-config.js
module.exports = {
siteMetadata: {
...
},
plugins: {
{
resolve: 'gatsby-plugin-matomo',
options: {
siteId: '',
matomoUrl: 'MATOMO_URL',
siteUrl: 'GATSBY_SITE_URL',
dev: true
}
}
}
};
Here siteId is blank because I need to put it dynamically.
gatsby-node.js
exports.onPreInit = async ({ actions, store }) => {
const { setPluginStatus } = actions;
const state = store.getState();
const plugin = state.flattenedPlugins.find(plugin => plugin.name === "gatsby-plugin-matomo");
if (plugin) {
const matomo_site_id = await fetchMatomoSiteId('API_ENDPOINT_URL');
plugin.pluginOptions = {...plugin.pluginOptions, ...{ siteId: matomo_site_id }};
setPluginStatus({ pluginOptions: plugin.pluginOptions }, plugin);
}
};
exports.createPages = async function createPages({ actions, graphql }) {
/* Create page code */
};
onPreInit is a gatsby lifecycle method which is executing just after plugin loaded from config. onPreInit lifecycle hook has some built in methods.
store is the redux store where gatsby is storing all required information for build process.
setPluginStatus is a redux action by which plugin data can be modified in redux store of gatsby.
Here the important thing is onPreInit lifecycle hook has to be called in async way.
Hope this helps someone in future.
Another approach that may work for you is using environment variables as you said, the URL is known so, you can add them in a .env file rather than a CSV.
By default, Gatsby uses .env.development for gatsby develop and a .env.production for gatsby build command. So you will need to create two files in the root of your project.
In your .env (both and .env.development and .env.production) just add:
DYNAMIC_URL: https://yourUrl.com
Since your gatsby-config.js is rendered in your Node server, you don't need to prefix them by GATSBY_ as the ones rendered in the client-side needs. So, in your gatsby-config.js:
module.exports = {
plugins: [
{
resolve: `gatsby-source-fetch`,
options: {
name: `brands`,
type: `brands`,
url: process.env.DYNAMIC_URL, // This is the part I need to be dynamic at run/build time.
method: `get`,
axiosConfig: {
headers: { Accept: "text/csv" },
},
saveTo: `${__dirname}/src/data/brands-summary.csv`,
createNodes: false,
},
},
],
It's important to avoid tracking those files in your Git repository since you don't want to expose this type of data.
I'm starting with Next.js and after going through docs, I cannot figure out how to get the route param code inside getStaticPaths method as shown below!?. code is not known before hand by any means and it can be anything.
I don't want to call api and get the data using useEffect inside the component.
File: pages/post/[code].js
import React from 'react';
import apiCall from 'api/something';
export default ({post}) => {
return <>
render components here based on prop `post`
</>
}
export async function getStaticPaths() {
// How to get [code] from the route here, which can be used below?
return {
paths: // NEED [code] HERE from current route,
fallback: false
}
}
export async function getStaticProps(ctx) {
return {
props: {
// [ctx.code] resolved from current route with the help of getStaticPaths,
post: apiCall(ctx.code)
}
}
}
I've tried getServerSideProps which works for me:
export const getServerSideProps = async (ctx) => {
return {
props: {
post: await apiCall(ctx.query.code)
}
};
};
But it fails when I do next export stating:
pages with getServerSideProps can not be exported. See more info here: https://err.sh/next.js/gssp-export
After investigating further on this error I found this solution, which is not feasible for me as my app is hosted on Heroku.
I'm trying to server-side render the html along with the data based on the route param code. But not able to do so now.
The purpose of the function getStaticPaths is to generate a list of paths for which static HTML will be rendered at build time. For example, for a list of 10 posts, you can generate 10 posts/[id] routes ahead of time if you know the id of the posts.
How getStaticPaths works with dynamic routes in more details..
Suppose you have a dynamic route /posts/[postId] if you choose to use static-generation you have to generate a list of paths that will include the postId as a route param and for each path returned, the function getStaticProps will be called to query the data at build time. Example,
// for /post/[postId]
export const getStaticPaths = async () => {
// if you know all the postId ahead of time
const paths = [
{ params: { postId: '1234' } }, // keep in mind postId has to be a string
{ params: { postId: '3792' } },
{ params: { postId: '1749' } },
]
return {
paths,
fallback: false // we are disabling fallback because we know all the paths ahead of time
}
}
// for each path returned getStaticProps will be called at build time
export const getStaticProps = async (context) => {
// you have access to the postId params that you returns from
// getStaticPaths here
const postId = context.params.postId
// now you can query the data from postId and return as props
return {
props: // queried data
}
}
If fallback is set to false any for any route path that is not returned from the function getStaticPaths nextjs will simply show a 404 error page.
How to use fallback: true to generate static pages for route params not known ahead of time
If you know some postId of the posts and the data for the posts do not change very often, you can choose to generate the pages with fallback property set to true, which will display a fallback version of the page for the paths that are not returned from the function getStaticPaths. And on request for the page nextjs will call getStaticProps and send the data as JSON which will be used to render the page in the browser.
Example,
// for /post/[postId]
export const getStaticPaths = async () => {
// you can get how many ever postIds are know ahead of time
// and return as paths with fallback set to true
const posts = // queried data from db or fetched from remote API
const paths = posts.map(post => { params:{ postId: post.id.toString() }})
return {
paths,
fallback: true
}
}
// in your page Component check for fallback and render a loading indicator
import { useRouter } from 'next/router';
const MyPage = (props) => {
// before you do anything
const router = useRouter();
if (router.isFallback) {
return <div>Loading....</div>
}
// rest of your page logic
}
If your data is very dynamic, let's say changing every 30mins or an hour or so. You can choose to use server-side rendering which will fetch the data on per request basis, but TTFB(time to first byte) will be higher. For example,
// for /post/[postId]
export const getServerSideProps = async (context) => {
// you also have access to the param postId from the context
const postId = context.params.postId
// query the data based on the postId and return as props
return {
props: // queried data
}
}
Keep in mind if you choose to go with getServerSideProps the function will be called on per-request basis so time to first byte will be higher.
Depending on use-cases you can also use static generation with client-side data fetching using swr from nextjs team repo link.
As I understand, you want to statically generate dynamic routes at build time.
To do so you need to let Next.js know what pages to generate, by specifying all codes.
export async function getStaticPaths() {
// you don't need here a code from current route
// but you need to specify all known post codes
return {
paths: [
{ params: { code: '1' } },
{ params: { code: '2' } },
{ params: { code: '3' } },
]
fallback: false
}
}
You would need to re-build app every time you change the posts.
Use getServerSideProps if you don't want to re-build project every time. Then the data would be fetched at request time. You can't export it because it requires Node.js server.
Given the following function:
./http.js
const http = {
refetch() {
return (component) => component;
}
}
I would like to mock the function in a test as follows:
./__tests__/someTest.js
import { refetch } from './http';
jest.mock('./http', () => {
return {
refetch: jest.fn();
}
}
refetch.mockImplementation((component) => {
// doing some stuff
})
But I'm receiving the error
TypeError: _http.refetch.mockImplementation is not a function
How can I mock the refetch function in the given example?
update:
When I modify the mock function slightly to:
jest.mock(
'../http',
() => ({ refetch: jest.fn() }),
);
I get a different error:
TypeError: (0 , _http.refetch)(...) is not a function
My guess it's something with the syntax where the curried function (or HOC function) is not mapped properly. But I don't know how to solve it.
Some of the real code I'm trying to test.
Note: The example is a bit sloppy. It works in the application. The example given is to give an idea of the workings.
./SettingsContainer
// ...some code
return (
<FormComponent
settingsFetch={settingsFetch}
settingsPutResponse={settingsPutResponse}
/>
);
}
const ConnectedSettingsContainer = refetch(
({
match: { params: { someId } },
}) => ({
settingsFetch: {
url: 'https://some-url.com/api/v1/f',
},
settingsPut: (data) => ({
settingsPutResponse: {
url: 'https://some-url.com/api/v1/p',
}
}),
}),
)(SettingsContainer);
export default ConnectedSettingsContainer;
Then in my component I am getting the settingsPutResponse via the props which react-refetch does.
I want to test if the user can re-submit a form after the server has responded once or twice with a 500 until a 204 is given back.
./FormComponent
// ...code
const FormComp = ({ settingsResponse }) => {
const [success, setSuccess] = useState(false);
useEffect(() => {
if (settingsResponse && settingsResponse.fulfilled) {
setSuccess(true);
}
}, [settingsResponse]);
if (success) {
// state of the form wil be reset
}
return (
<form>
<label htmlFor"username">
<input type="text" id="username" />
<button type="submit">Save</button>
</form>
)
};
The first question to ask yourself about mocking is "do I really need to mock this?" The most straightforward solution here is to test "component" directly instead of trying to fake out an http HOC wrapper around it.
I generally avoid trying to unit test things related to I/O. Those things are best handled with functional or integration tests. You can accomplish that by making sure that, given same props, component always renders the same output. Then, it becomes trivial to unit test component with no mocks required.
Then use functional and/or integration tests to ensure that the actual http I/O happens correctly
To more directly answer you question though, jest.fn is not a component, but React is expecting one. If you want the mock to work, you must give it a real component.
Your sample code here doesn't make sense because every part of your example is fake code. Which real code are you trying to test? I've seen gigantic test files that never actually exercize any real code - they were just testing an elaborate system of mocks. Be careful not to fall into that trap.
Sentry by defaults has integration for console.log to make it part of breadcrumbs:
Link: Import name: Sentry.Integrations.Console
How can we make it to work for bunyan logger as well, like:
const koa = require('koa');
const app = new koa();
const bunyan = require('bunyan');
const log = bunyan.createLogger({
name: 'app',
..... other settings go here ....
});
const Sentry = require('#sentry/node');
Sentry.init({
dsn: MY_DSN_HERE,
integrations: integrations => {
// should anything be handled here & how?
return [...integrations];
},
release: 'xxxx-xx-xx'
});
app.on('error', (err) => {
Sentry.captureException(err);
});
// I am trying all to be part of sentry breadcrumbs
// but only console.log('foo'); is working
console.log('foo');
log.info('bar');
log.warn('baz');
log.debug('any');
log.error('many');
throw new Error('help!');
P.S. I have already tried bunyan-sentry-stream but no success with #sentry/node, it just pushes entries instead of treating them as breadcrumbs.
Bunyan supports custom streams, and those streams are just function calls. See https://github.com/trentm/node-bunyan#streams
Below is an example custom stream that simply writes to the console. It would be straight forward to use this example to instead write to the Sentry module, likely calling Sentry.addBreadcrumb({}) or similar function.
Please note though that the variable record in my example below is a JSON string, so you would likely want to parse it to get the log level, message, and other data out of it for submission to Sentry.
{
level: 'debug',
stream:
(function () {
return {
write: function(record) {
console.log('Hello: ' + record);
}
}
})()
}