Deprecate react-unit-test-utils 7/15

[diana-villalvazo-wgu]

Description

Remove use of 'shallow' (react-unit-test-utils) in following files:

• src/containers/CourseFilterControls/components/SortForm.test.jsx
• src/containers/CourseFilterControls/ActiveCourseFilters.test.jsx
• src/containers/CourseFilterControls/CourseFilterControls.test.jsx
• src/containers/CoursesPanel/CourseList/index.test.jsx
• src/containers/CoursesPanel/NoCoursesView/index.test.jsx

Note: As part of this work we find out paragon components were mocked on src/setupTest.jsx causing testing library unit tests to fail, since we are doing this work in multiple PRs and in order to not break other existing snapshot tests, we will unmock paragon or needed things on new tests and by end of react-unit-test-utils removal we will remove paragon mocks and unmock lines accordingly.

Support Information

Closes #647

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @diana-villalvazo-wgu!

This repository is currently maintained by @2U-aperture.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for engineering review.

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

• If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
  • This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
• If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

• Dependencies

  This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...

• Blockers

  This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.

• Timeline information

  This PR must be merged by XX date because ...

• Partner information

  This is for a course on edx.org.

• Supporting documentation
• Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

---

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

• Overview of Review Process for Community Contributions
• Pull Request Status Guide
• Making changes to your pull request

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

• The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
• The need for product review
• Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.59%. Comparing base (8a0b9dc) to head (7d9a837).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #662   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.59%   97.59%           
=======================================
  Files         152      152           
  Lines        1332     1332           
  Branches      230      230           
=======================================
  Hits         1300     1300           
  Misses         31       31           
  Partials        1        1           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[diana-villalvazo-wgu]

Hi @openedx/2u-aperture can someone help with a review? thanks!

[vmnavarro94]

🚀

[MaxFrank13]

Should this instead be:

Suggested change

	ActiveCourseFilters: jest.fn(() => <div>CourseFilterControls</div>),
	ActiveCourseFilters: jest.fn(() => <div>ActiveCourseFilters</div>),

since CourseFilterControls is the name of another component?

[diana-villalvazo-wgu]

done!

[MaxFrank13]

I noticed that the unmock of @edx/frontend-platform/i18n doesn't appear necessary for the tests to pass for any of these test files. Can we remove that or is it needed for another reason?

[diana-villalvazo-wgu]

I noticed that the unmock of @edx/frontend-platform/i18n doesn't appear necessary for the tests to pass for any of these test files. Can we remove that or is it needed for another reason?

I will remove the mocks for paragon, react and i18n from src/setupTest.jsx on some of the lasts PRs for depr work and remove all the unmock lines.
so adding it right now is just to remove the current mock and get the functionality directly from the IntlProvider instead of the mock.

[MaxFrank13]

I will remove the mocks for paragon, react and i18n from src/setupTest.jsx on some of the lasts PRs for depr work and remove all the unmock lines. so adding it right now is just to remove the current mock and get the functionality directly from the IntlProvider instead of the mock.

This makes sense although the mock for i18n is actually using the normal IntlProvider from frontend-platform (source). So unmocking it doesn't actually change anything. Since you plan to remove them eventually, it's certainly fine to keep them. But it's more to remove later and doesn't appear to be impacting anything for the refactor.

Regardless, I'll resolve the requested changes and we can proceed as you had planned.

[diana-villalvazo-wgu]

rebased master 👍