Testing higher order reducer with jest
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I'm trying to understand conception of creating unit tests for the frontend applications.
I have created higher order reducer:
// @flow
type action = {
type: string,
payload?: any
};
/**
* Async Reducer Factory to reduce duplicated code in async reducers.
* Higher Order Reducer.
*
* @param {String} name - Reducer name.
* @returns {Function}
*/
export const asyncReducerFactory = (name: String) => {
return (
state = { data: null, isLoading: false, error: null },
action: action
) => {
switch (action.type) {
case `FETCH_${name}_STARTED`:
return { data: null, isLoading: true, error: null };
case `FETCH_${name}_SUCCESS`:
return { data: action.payload, isLoading: false, error: null };
case `FETCH_${name}_ERROR`:
return { data: null, isLoading: false, error: action.payload };
default:
return state;
}
};
};
Tests:
import { asyncReducerFactory } from "./factories";
describe("Test async reducers factory", () => {
const factory = asyncReducerFactory("TEST");
it("should create reducer", () => {
expect(factory).not.toBe(null);
});
it("should start fetching", () => {
expect(factory({}, { type: "FETCH_TEST_STARTED" })).toEqual({
data: null,
isLoading: true,
error: null
});
});
it("should end fetching with success", () => {
expect(
factory({}, { type: "FETCH_TEST_SUCCESS", payload: "success" })
).toEqual({
data: "success",
isLoading: false,
error: null
});
});
it("should end fetching with error", () => {
expect(
factory({}, { type: "FETCH_TEST_ERROR", payload: "error" })
).toEqual({
data: null,
isLoading: false,
error: "error"
});
});
it("should return default state", () => {
expect(factory({}, { type: "DIFFERENT" })).toEqual({});
});
});
I would really appreciate, if you could let me know:
- if i'm using flow correctly?
- if my tests are reliable?
- how could i make it more generic?
javascript unit-testing react.js
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I'm trying to understand conception of creating unit tests for the frontend applications.
I have created higher order reducer:
// @flow
type action = {
type: string,
payload?: any
};
/**
* Async Reducer Factory to reduce duplicated code in async reducers.
* Higher Order Reducer.
*
* @param {String} name - Reducer name.
* @returns {Function}
*/
export const asyncReducerFactory = (name: String) => {
return (
state = { data: null, isLoading: false, error: null },
action: action
) => {
switch (action.type) {
case `FETCH_${name}_STARTED`:
return { data: null, isLoading: true, error: null };
case `FETCH_${name}_SUCCESS`:
return { data: action.payload, isLoading: false, error: null };
case `FETCH_${name}_ERROR`:
return { data: null, isLoading: false, error: action.payload };
default:
return state;
}
};
};
Tests:
import { asyncReducerFactory } from "./factories";
describe("Test async reducers factory", () => {
const factory = asyncReducerFactory("TEST");
it("should create reducer", () => {
expect(factory).not.toBe(null);
});
it("should start fetching", () => {
expect(factory({}, { type: "FETCH_TEST_STARTED" })).toEqual({
data: null,
isLoading: true,
error: null
});
});
it("should end fetching with success", () => {
expect(
factory({}, { type: "FETCH_TEST_SUCCESS", payload: "success" })
).toEqual({
data: "success",
isLoading: false,
error: null
});
});
it("should end fetching with error", () => {
expect(
factory({}, { type: "FETCH_TEST_ERROR", payload: "error" })
).toEqual({
data: null,
isLoading: false,
error: "error"
});
});
it("should return default state", () => {
expect(factory({}, { type: "DIFFERENT" })).toEqual({});
});
});
I would really appreciate, if you could let me know:
- if i'm using flow correctly?
- if my tests are reliable?
- how could i make it more generic?
javascript unit-testing react.js
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I'm trying to understand conception of creating unit tests for the frontend applications.
I have created higher order reducer:
// @flow
type action = {
type: string,
payload?: any
};
/**
* Async Reducer Factory to reduce duplicated code in async reducers.
* Higher Order Reducer.
*
* @param {String} name - Reducer name.
* @returns {Function}
*/
export const asyncReducerFactory = (name: String) => {
return (
state = { data: null, isLoading: false, error: null },
action: action
) => {
switch (action.type) {
case `FETCH_${name}_STARTED`:
return { data: null, isLoading: true, error: null };
case `FETCH_${name}_SUCCESS`:
return { data: action.payload, isLoading: false, error: null };
case `FETCH_${name}_ERROR`:
return { data: null, isLoading: false, error: action.payload };
default:
return state;
}
};
};
Tests:
import { asyncReducerFactory } from "./factories";
describe("Test async reducers factory", () => {
const factory = asyncReducerFactory("TEST");
it("should create reducer", () => {
expect(factory).not.toBe(null);
});
it("should start fetching", () => {
expect(factory({}, { type: "FETCH_TEST_STARTED" })).toEqual({
data: null,
isLoading: true,
error: null
});
});
it("should end fetching with success", () => {
expect(
factory({}, { type: "FETCH_TEST_SUCCESS", payload: "success" })
).toEqual({
data: "success",
isLoading: false,
error: null
});
});
it("should end fetching with error", () => {
expect(
factory({}, { type: "FETCH_TEST_ERROR", payload: "error" })
).toEqual({
data: null,
isLoading: false,
error: "error"
});
});
it("should return default state", () => {
expect(factory({}, { type: "DIFFERENT" })).toEqual({});
});
});
I would really appreciate, if you could let me know:
- if i'm using flow correctly?
- if my tests are reliable?
- how could i make it more generic?
javascript unit-testing react.js
I'm trying to understand conception of creating unit tests for the frontend applications.
I have created higher order reducer:
// @flow
type action = {
type: string,
payload?: any
};
/**
* Async Reducer Factory to reduce duplicated code in async reducers.
* Higher Order Reducer.
*
* @param {String} name - Reducer name.
* @returns {Function}
*/
export const asyncReducerFactory = (name: String) => {
return (
state = { data: null, isLoading: false, error: null },
action: action
) => {
switch (action.type) {
case `FETCH_${name}_STARTED`:
return { data: null, isLoading: true, error: null };
case `FETCH_${name}_SUCCESS`:
return { data: action.payload, isLoading: false, error: null };
case `FETCH_${name}_ERROR`:
return { data: null, isLoading: false, error: action.payload };
default:
return state;
}
};
};
Tests:
import { asyncReducerFactory } from "./factories";
describe("Test async reducers factory", () => {
const factory = asyncReducerFactory("TEST");
it("should create reducer", () => {
expect(factory).not.toBe(null);
});
it("should start fetching", () => {
expect(factory({}, { type: "FETCH_TEST_STARTED" })).toEqual({
data: null,
isLoading: true,
error: null
});
});
it("should end fetching with success", () => {
expect(
factory({}, { type: "FETCH_TEST_SUCCESS", payload: "success" })
).toEqual({
data: "success",
isLoading: false,
error: null
});
});
it("should end fetching with error", () => {
expect(
factory({}, { type: "FETCH_TEST_ERROR", payload: "error" })
).toEqual({
data: null,
isLoading: false,
error: "error"
});
});
it("should return default state", () => {
expect(factory({}, { type: "DIFFERENT" })).toEqual({});
});
});
I would really appreciate, if you could let me know:
- if i'm using flow correctly?
- if my tests are reliable?
- how could i make it more generic?
javascript unit-testing react.js
javascript unit-testing react.js
asked Aug 3 at 15:52
Dan Zawadzki
112
112
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
I have very minimal flow experience, but the action definition looks right. You may also be able to define a state
type for this reducer.
It's pretty generic right now, so I'm not sure I would push it much more. Maybe it should be called fetchReducerFactory
, just to keep the terminology consistent.
The tests look good. By "reliable", you probably mean "good." They are readable and look to provide good coverage for the code and branches.
- You may want to test that the default state is correct.
- You may want to test that unknown actions do nothing to the state.
NOTE: The following comment is pretty minor, but wanted to bring it up. The way the code is structured, the tests make sense. But there are implicit cases that work because of the code structure. Let me explain:
You expect FETCH_TEST_SUCCESS
to do 3 things: (1) clear the isLoading
flag (2) set data
to the payload, and (3) set error
to null. These three behaviors are wrapped together in one test. And, the only data that is actually changed by the reducer in this test is the data
property; isLoading
and error
are not changed. So, for this test, you could make sure all values are changed by passing in a different state:
expect(
factory({ data: null, isLoading: true, error: 3 },
{ type: "FETCH_TEST_SUCCESS", payload: "success" })
).toEqual({
data: "success",
isLoading: false,
error: null
});
This will guard against code changes later where someone refactors. Or, you could just have three small tests, each that test single property mutations. Again, small potatoes.
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
I have very minimal flow experience, but the action definition looks right. You may also be able to define a state
type for this reducer.
It's pretty generic right now, so I'm not sure I would push it much more. Maybe it should be called fetchReducerFactory
, just to keep the terminology consistent.
The tests look good. By "reliable", you probably mean "good." They are readable and look to provide good coverage for the code and branches.
- You may want to test that the default state is correct.
- You may want to test that unknown actions do nothing to the state.
NOTE: The following comment is pretty minor, but wanted to bring it up. The way the code is structured, the tests make sense. But there are implicit cases that work because of the code structure. Let me explain:
You expect FETCH_TEST_SUCCESS
to do 3 things: (1) clear the isLoading
flag (2) set data
to the payload, and (3) set error
to null. These three behaviors are wrapped together in one test. And, the only data that is actually changed by the reducer in this test is the data
property; isLoading
and error
are not changed. So, for this test, you could make sure all values are changed by passing in a different state:
expect(
factory({ data: null, isLoading: true, error: 3 },
{ type: "FETCH_TEST_SUCCESS", payload: "success" })
).toEqual({
data: "success",
isLoading: false,
error: null
});
This will guard against code changes later where someone refactors. Or, you could just have three small tests, each that test single property mutations. Again, small potatoes.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
I have very minimal flow experience, but the action definition looks right. You may also be able to define a state
type for this reducer.
It's pretty generic right now, so I'm not sure I would push it much more. Maybe it should be called fetchReducerFactory
, just to keep the terminology consistent.
The tests look good. By "reliable", you probably mean "good." They are readable and look to provide good coverage for the code and branches.
- You may want to test that the default state is correct.
- You may want to test that unknown actions do nothing to the state.
NOTE: The following comment is pretty minor, but wanted to bring it up. The way the code is structured, the tests make sense. But there are implicit cases that work because of the code structure. Let me explain:
You expect FETCH_TEST_SUCCESS
to do 3 things: (1) clear the isLoading
flag (2) set data
to the payload, and (3) set error
to null. These three behaviors are wrapped together in one test. And, the only data that is actually changed by the reducer in this test is the data
property; isLoading
and error
are not changed. So, for this test, you could make sure all values are changed by passing in a different state:
expect(
factory({ data: null, isLoading: true, error: 3 },
{ type: "FETCH_TEST_SUCCESS", payload: "success" })
).toEqual({
data: "success",
isLoading: false,
error: null
});
This will guard against code changes later where someone refactors. Or, you could just have three small tests, each that test single property mutations. Again, small potatoes.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I have very minimal flow experience, but the action definition looks right. You may also be able to define a state
type for this reducer.
It's pretty generic right now, so I'm not sure I would push it much more. Maybe it should be called fetchReducerFactory
, just to keep the terminology consistent.
The tests look good. By "reliable", you probably mean "good." They are readable and look to provide good coverage for the code and branches.
- You may want to test that the default state is correct.
- You may want to test that unknown actions do nothing to the state.
NOTE: The following comment is pretty minor, but wanted to bring it up. The way the code is structured, the tests make sense. But there are implicit cases that work because of the code structure. Let me explain:
You expect FETCH_TEST_SUCCESS
to do 3 things: (1) clear the isLoading
flag (2) set data
to the payload, and (3) set error
to null. These three behaviors are wrapped together in one test. And, the only data that is actually changed by the reducer in this test is the data
property; isLoading
and error
are not changed. So, for this test, you could make sure all values are changed by passing in a different state:
expect(
factory({ data: null, isLoading: true, error: 3 },
{ type: "FETCH_TEST_SUCCESS", payload: "success" })
).toEqual({
data: "success",
isLoading: false,
error: null
});
This will guard against code changes later where someone refactors. Or, you could just have three small tests, each that test single property mutations. Again, small potatoes.
I have very minimal flow experience, but the action definition looks right. You may also be able to define a state
type for this reducer.
It's pretty generic right now, so I'm not sure I would push it much more. Maybe it should be called fetchReducerFactory
, just to keep the terminology consistent.
The tests look good. By "reliable", you probably mean "good." They are readable and look to provide good coverage for the code and branches.
- You may want to test that the default state is correct.
- You may want to test that unknown actions do nothing to the state.
NOTE: The following comment is pretty minor, but wanted to bring it up. The way the code is structured, the tests make sense. But there are implicit cases that work because of the code structure. Let me explain:
You expect FETCH_TEST_SUCCESS
to do 3 things: (1) clear the isLoading
flag (2) set data
to the payload, and (3) set error
to null. These three behaviors are wrapped together in one test. And, the only data that is actually changed by the reducer in this test is the data
property; isLoading
and error
are not changed. So, for this test, you could make sure all values are changed by passing in a different state:
expect(
factory({ data: null, isLoading: true, error: 3 },
{ type: "FETCH_TEST_SUCCESS", payload: "success" })
).toEqual({
data: "success",
isLoading: false,
error: null
});
This will guard against code changes later where someone refactors. Or, you could just have three small tests, each that test single property mutations. Again, small potatoes.
answered Aug 13 at 2:47
ndp
1,08676
1,08676
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f200912%2ftesting-higher-order-reducer-with-jest%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown