Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

UIREC-308 Add validation for the claimingInterval field #474

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 3, 2024

Conversation

usavkov-epam
Copy link
Contributor

@usavkov-epam usavkov-epam commented Dec 27, 2023

Purpose

https://issues.folio.org/browse/UIREC-308

Claiming interval should be a required field when claiming is active for a receiving title.

Approach

Apply validation for claiming interval field when it's required field (claiming active).

Screenshot

chrome_jEfnyWInPk.mp4

Pre-Merge Checklist

Before merging this PR, please go through the following list and take appropriate actions.

  • I've added appropriate record to the CHANGELOG.md
  • Does this PR meet or exceed the expected quality standards?
    • Code coverage on new code is 80% or greater
    • Duplications on new code is 3% or less
    • There are no major code smells or security issues
  • Does this introduce breaking changes?
    • If any API-related changes - okapi interfaces and permissions are reviewed/changed correspondingly
    • There are no breaking changes in this PR.

If there are breaking changes, please STOP and consider the following:

  • What other modules will these changes impact?
  • Do JIRAs exist to update the impacted modules?
    • If not, please create them
    • Do they contain the appropriate level of detail? Which endpoints/schemas changed, etc.
    • Do they have all they appropriate links to blocked/related issues?
  • Are the JIRAs under active development?
    • If not, contact the project's PO and make sure they're aware of the urgency.
  • Do PRs exist for these changes?
    • If so, have they been approved?

Ideally all of the PRs involved in breaking changes would be merged in the same day to avoid breaking the folio-testing environment. Communication is paramount if that is to be achieved, especially as the number of intermodule and inter-team dependencies increase.

While it's helpful for reviewers to help identify potential problems, ensuring that it's safe to merge is ultimately the responsibility of the PR assignee.

@usavkov-epam usavkov-epam self-assigned this Dec 27, 2023
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 27, 2023

Jest Unit Test Statistics

198 tests  +1   197 ✔️ +1   3m 7s ⏱️ +3s
  61 suites ±0       1 💤 ±0 
    1 files   ±0       0 ±0 

Results for commit f56f81d. ± Comparison against base commit 025ffec.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 27, 2023

BigTest Unit Test Statistics

0 tests  ±0   0 ✔️ ±0   0s ⏱️ ±0s
0 suites ±0   0 💤 ±0 
0 files   ±0   0 ±0 

Results for commit f56f81d. ± Comparison against base commit 025ffec.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@usavkov-epam usavkov-epam requested a review from a team December 27, 2023 12:43
src/TitleForm/TitleForm.js Show resolved Hide resolved
@@ -73,6 +73,35 @@ describe('TitleForm', () => {
expect(claimingIntervalField).toHaveValue(null);
});

it('should validate \'Claiming interval\' field', async () => {

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I suggest separating all these checks into separate test cases. You have a lot of checks here, if one of them fails, you won't be able to detect which one exactly does. Try the next structure:

describe('when "Claiming active" unchecked', () => {
  it('field shouldn't be required')
});

describe('when "Claiming active" checked', () => {
  it('field should be required')
});
and so on

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the suggestion! However, this test is also designed to track the state of the field over time, so it is reduced to one test, this allows us to ensure that validation works when dependent fields change.

@usavkov-epam usavkov-epam requested a review from a team December 29, 2023 06:59
Copy link

sonarqubecloud bot commented Jan 3, 2024

@usavkov-epam usavkov-epam merged commit 2987d26 into master Jan 3, 2024
6 checks passed
@usavkov-epam usavkov-epam deleted the UIREC-308 branch January 3, 2024 09:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants