Skip to content

Conversation

@ParthGupta1304
Copy link
Contributor

@ParthGupta1304 ParthGupta1304 commented Jul 25, 2025

Proposed change

Added a test file for the Loading Spinner React component.

Resolves #1841

🧠 Overview
This PR introduces a complete set of unit tests for the LoadingSpinner component to improve the project's test coverage and reliability. The tests were written using Jest and React Testing Library in accordance with the Essential Test Coverage Checklist provided in the issue.

🔍 Test Scenarios Covered
Renders without crashing with minimal props
Handles invalid imageUrl input gracefully
Renders default fallback images for light/dark themes
Accepts and renders custom imageUrl when provided
Applies correct Tailwind CSS classes for theme modes
Ensures alt text for accessibility
Checks for expected DOM structure and animation class presence

🙏 Acknowledgements
Thanks to the OWASP/Nest team for the well-structured codebase and clear contribution guidelines. Happy to iterate if feedback is provided!

Checklist

  • I've read and followed the contributing guidelines.
  • I've run make check-test locally; all checks and tests passed.

@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jul 25, 2025

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Added comprehensive unit tests for the LoadingSpinner component, covering rendering, accessibility, image variants for light and dark modes, handling of custom and default images, and animation classes.

Walkthrough

A new unit test file for the LoadingSpinner React component has been added. The tests cover rendering, accessibility, prop-based behavior, edge cases, and CSS class verification. The next/image component is mocked to facilitate testing. No changes were made to exported or public entities.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Change Summary
LoadingSpinner component unit tests
frontend/__tests__/unit/components/LoadingSpinner.test.tsx
Added comprehensive unit tests for the LoadingSpinner component, including rendering, props, accessibility, classNames, default values, and edge cases.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~4 minutes

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Renders successfully with minimal required props (#1841)
Conditional rendering logic (#1841)
Prop-based behavior, default values and fallbacks (#1841)
Handles edge cases and invalid inputs (#1841)
Accessibility roles and labels, DOM structure/classNames/styles (#1841)
Event handling, state changes/internal logic (#1841) No tests for event handling or internal state changes, possibly because the component has none.

Suggested reviewers

  • kasya
  • arkid15r

Note

⚡️ Unit Test Generation is now available in beta!

Learn more here, or try it out under "Finishing Touches" below.


📜 Recent review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f1656d9 and 18f1400.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • frontend/__tests__/unit/components/LoadingSpinner.test.tsx (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
  • frontend/tests/unit/components/LoadingSpinner.test.tsx
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)
  • GitHub Check: Run frontend e2e tests
  • GitHub Check: Run frontend unit tests
✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ 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.
    • Explain this complex logic.
    • 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 explain this code block.
    • @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 explain its main purpose.
    • @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.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

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.
  • @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate unit tests to generate unit tests for this PR.
  • @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
Contributor

@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: 8

🧹 Nitpick comments (5)
frontend/package.json (1)

129-134: Complete the package metadata fields.

Several metadata fields are empty, which reduces the usefulness of the package information. Consider providing appropriate values for description, keywords, and author.

- "description": "",
+ "description": "Frontend application for OWASP Nest security testing platform",
- "keywords": [],
+ "keywords": ["owasp", "security", "testing", "vulnerability", "frontend", "nextjs"],
- "author": "",
+ "author": "OWASP Nest Team",
frontend/__tests__/unit/components/LoadingSpinner.test.tsx (4)

17-21: Improve type safety in the invalid input test.

Using as any bypasses TypeScript's type checking. Consider using a more type-safe approach or adding a comment explaining why this specific invalid input scenario is being tested.

  it('handles invalid imageUrl input gracefully', () => {
-   render(<LoadingSpinner imageUrl={123 as any} />)
+   render(<LoadingSpinner imageUrl={123 as unknown as string} />)
    const images = screen.getAllByAltText('Loading indicator')
    expect(images.length).toBe(2)
  })

Or add a comment explaining the test case:

  it('handles invalid imageUrl input gracefully', () => {
+   // Testing component resilience when receiving unexpected prop types at runtime
    render(<LoadingSpinner imageUrl={123 as any} />)
    const images = screen.getAllByAltText('Loading indicator')
    expect(images.length).toBe(2)
  })

22-26: Remove redundant accessibility test.

This test duplicates the logic from the first test. The accessibility aspect is already covered by using getAllByAltText in other tests.

- it('has appropriate alt text for accessibility', () => {
-   render(<LoadingSpinner />)
-   const images = screen.getAllByAltText('Loading indicator')
-   expect(images.length).toBe(2)
- })

The alt text verification is already covered in other tests, making this one redundant.


48-52: Improve spinner container test specificity.

The test uses chained optional operators and assumes a specific DOM structure. Consider making the test more robust and specific about what it's testing.

  it('renders spinner container with correct styles', () => {
    render(<LoadingSpinner />)
-   const spinnerContainer = screen.getByAltText('Loading indicator').closest('div')
-   expect(spinnerContainer?.parentElement?.className).toContain('animate-fade-in-out')
+   // Test the specific container that should have the animation class
+   const container = screen.getByAltText('Loading indicator').closest('[class*="animate-fade-in-out"]')
+   expect(container).toBeInTheDocument()
+   expect(container).toHaveClass('animate-fade-in-out')
  })

54-59: Simplify the accessibility test.

The test checks both alt text and element type, but the element type check is redundant since getByAltText already ensures it's an accessible element.

  it('has appropriate alt text and accessibility image role', () => {
    render(<LoadingSpinner />)
    const image = screen.getByAltText('Loading indicator')
    expect(image).toBeInTheDocument()
-   expect(image.tagName.toLowerCase()).toBe('img')
  })

The getByAltText query already ensures the element has proper accessibility attributes, making the tag name check unnecessary.

📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 152f2cd and dd3f22a.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
  • frontend/package-lock.json is excluded by !**/package-lock.json
  • package-lock.json is excluded by !**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • frontend/__tests__/unit/components/LoadingSpinner.test.tsx (1 hunks)
  • frontend/package.json (3 hunks)
  • package.json (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
frontend/package.json (2)

16-16: LGTM: Simplified test script addition.

The new "test": "jest" script provides a convenient way to run tests without the TypeScript compilation step, which is useful for quick test runs.


75-75: LGTM: Correct dependency categorization.

Moving @testing-library/user-event to devDependencies is the correct approach since it's only used during testing and not in production code.

frontend/__tests__/unit/components/LoadingSpinner.test.tsx (1)

4-8: LGTM: Proper Next.js Image component mocking.

The mock implementation correctly replaces the Next.js Image component with a standard img element to avoid SSR-related issues during testing. This is a best practice for testing Next.js components.

package.json Outdated
"name": "nest-owasp",
"version": "1.0.0",
"description": "<div align=\"center\">",
"main": "index.js",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Verification agent

🧩 Analysis chain

Verify the main entry point exists.

The main field points to "index.js" but this file may not exist in the root directory. Consider updating this to the correct entry point or removing it if not applicable.


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if index.js exists in the root directory
if [ -f "index.js" ]; then
  echo "index.js exists"
else 
  echo "index.js does not exist - main field may be incorrect"
fi

Length of output: 138


Fix missing main entry in package.json

We ran a check ([ -f index.js ]) and confirmed that index.js does not exist at the project root. This will break module resolution when users import your package.

Please update the main field in package.json to point to your actual entry file or add the missing index.js. For example:

  • If your build outputs to dist/index.js:
    • Change "main": "index.js" to "main": "dist/index.js".
  • If your source entry lives under src/:
    • Either add a root-level index.js that re-exports from src/
    • Or adjust "main" to "src/index.js" (and ensure your publishing setup includes it).
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In package.json at line 5, the "main" field is set to "index.js" but this file
does not exist at the project root, causing module resolution failures. To fix
this, update the "main" field to point to the actual entry file path, such as
"dist/index.js" if your build outputs there, or "src/index.js" if your source
entry is under src/. Alternatively, add a root-level index.js that re-exports
from your source entry. Ensure the specified entry file exists and is included
in your package.

@kasya
Copy link
Collaborator

kasya commented Jul 26, 2025

@ParthGupta1304 Could you resolve conflicts and run make check locally? Than push any updated file to this PR.

@ParthGupta1304
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sure Kasya, I will work on it

@ParthGupta1304
Copy link
Contributor Author

I have resolved the conflicts and ran the make check locally

Copy link
Collaborator

@kasya kasya left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hey @ParthGupta1304 Left some questions! Also there are conflicting files in this PR.

"@next/third-parties": "^15.4.3",
"@sentry/nextjs": "^9.41.0",
"@testing-library/user-event": "^14.6.1",
"@testing-library/dom": "^10.4.0",
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why did you make these updates? 🤔

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi kasya, I made these changes as these dependencies were required to test the changes

package.json Outdated
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same question here. The task was to only create tests for the component 🤔

@ParthGupta1304
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi code reviewers, I have tried my best to resolve the conflict, but I think this is the best I could do for now. I would really appreciate any suggestions and guidance since I am new to open source :).

@ParthGupta1304 ParthGupta1304 requested a review from kasya July 28, 2025 18:25
Copy link
Collaborator

@arkid15r arkid15r left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please revert all unrelated changes. Keep frontend/tests/unit/components/LoadingSpinner.test.tsx file only.

- Reverted frontend/package.json to main branch version
- Reverted frontend/src/components/LoadingSpinner.tsx to main branch version
- Removed all extra files (index.js, root package.json, package-lock files)
- Kept comprehensive LoadingSpinner.test.tsx with 8 test cases
- Project now matches main branch with only test file addition
@ParthGupta1304
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi code managers, I have reverted all the changes except the test file, and I can see no conflicts in the PR.
I request another code review, and I am happy to make required changes.

@ParthGupta1304 ParthGupta1304 requested a review from arkid15r July 29, 2025 08:50
@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Aug 1, 2025

@kasya kasya dismissed arkid15r’s stale review August 1, 2025 02:47

Already addressed

@kasya kasya added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 1, 2025
Merged via the queue into OWASP:main with commit e6f4abe Aug 1, 2025
24 checks passed
@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot mentioned this pull request Dec 7, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add tests for <LoadingSpinner> component

3 participants