Many of our components need (or will eventually need) the router context from the router provider. Let’s write a custom render method that looks and acts like the render method from React Testing Library but adds features for our router so we don’t have to concern ourselves about the implementation detail of the router.

Test React Components with Jest and React Testing Library

Create a Custom render Function to Simplify Tests of react-router Components

```js
test('main renders about and home and I can navigate to those pages', () => {
  const history = createMemoryHistory({initialEntries: ['/']})
  const {getByRole, getByText} = render(
    <Router history={history}>
      <Main />
    </Router>,
  )
  expect(getByRole('heading')).toHaveTextContent(/home/i)
  fireEvent.click(getByText(/about/i))
  expect(getByRole('heading')).toHaveTextContent(/about/i)
})

test('landing on a bad page shows no match component', () => {
  const history = createMemoryHistory({
    initialEntries: ['/something-that-does-not-match'],
  })
  const {getByRole} = render(
    <Router history={history}>
      <Main />
    </Router>,
  )
  expect(getByRole('heading')).toHaveTextContent(/404/i)
})
```

Instructor: [00:01] We've got a little bit of duplication between these two tests. In fact, when I created this test, we just copy-pasted most of this stuff. It would be nice if we created some utility that all of our tests that are going to be using router components could use, so we don't have to do all of this set up.

[00:15] What I'm going to do is up here, I'll make a function called `render` that's going to take `ui` and `options`. I'm going to alias this to `rtlRender` and then we'll return `rtlRender` `ui` and `options`.

```js
import {render as rtlRender, fireEvent} from '@testing-library/react'

function render (ui, options) {
  return rtlRender(ui, options)
}
```

[00:28] Now, everything should still be passing. That was just a straight up refactor, just renaming some variables and things, forwarding on some options. Now we're going to make things a little bit better.

[00:37] First of all, I want to take this `history` that we have here, move that up here. We're going to also take all of this and stick that in our UI spot here and instead, we'll say `ui` here.

[00:49] What that does for us is I can get rid of the `Router` argument here and get rid of the `Router` argument here. That gets me most of the way.

```js
import {render as rtlRender, fireEvent} from '@testing-library/react'

function render (ui, options) {
  const history = createMemoryHistory({
    initialEntries: ['/something-that-does-not-match'],
  })
  return rtlRender(
    <Router history={history}>
      {ui}
    </Router>, options)
}

test('main renders about and home and I can navigate to those pages', () => {
  const {getByRole, getByText} = render(
    <Main />
  )
  expect(getByRole('heading')).toHaveTextContent(/home/i)
  fireEvent.click(getByText(/about/i))
  expect(getByRole('heading')).toHaveTextContent(/about/i)
})

test('landing on a bad page shows no match component', () => {
  const history = createMemoryHistory({
    initialEntries: ['/something-that-does-not-match'],
  })
  const {getByRole} = render(
    <Main />
  )
  expect(getByRole('heading')).toHaveTextContent(/404/i)
})
```

[00:57] The difference here is that the `history` on this test needs to have different `initialEntries` than the `history` that we had in our initial test.

[01:04] What we're going to do is I'm going to make this configurable. We'll say `options.route` or `'/'`. To make that work, we need to have `options` default to an empty object here.

```js
function render (ui, options = {}) {
  const history = createMemoryHistory({
    initialEntries: [options.route || '/'],
  })
  return rtlRender(
    <Router history={history}>
      {ui}
    </Router>, options)
}
```

[01:15] Now, I can take this `initialEntries` route and pass it as an option here. We'll say, route right there. We can get rid of the history and now we save that, simplifying our test quite a bit and our tests were still passing.

```js
test('landing on a bad page shows no match component', () => {
  const {getByRole} = render(
    <Main />, {
      route: '/something-that-does-not-match',
  })
  expect(getByRole('heading')).toHaveTextContent(/404/i)
})
```

[01:28] There's one thing that I'm going to change about the way we were doing things before to make things quite a bit more flexible. That is, neither one of these tests were using `rerender`, but if they were, then they would have a problem because they won't have access to the `Router` and the `history` to rerender it properly. That's why we're going to change our `options` a little bit.

[01:46] I'm going to take these `options`, we'll spread to those properties here, so we just refactor that. Now I'm going to also provide a `wrapper` option. We're going to make a `Wrapper` component.

```js
function render (ui, options = {}) {
  const history = createMemoryHistory({
    initialEntries: [options.route || '/'],
  })
  return rtlRender(
    <Router history={history}>
      {ui}
    </Router>, {wrapper: Wrapper, ...options})
}
```

[01:56] I'll make that function here, `Wrapper`. This is going to take a `prop` called `children` and this will return basically the same thing, except instead of our `ui` argument that we're accepting to our render, we'll render the children now that's passed to a `Wrapper`.

```js
function render (ui, options = {}) {
  const history = createMemoryHistory({
    initialEntries: [options.route || '/'],
  })

  function Wrapper({children}) {
    return <Router history={history}>{children}</Router>
  }

  return rtlRender(
    <Router history={history}>
      {ui}
    </Router>, {wrapper: Wrapper, ...options})
}
```

[02:12] What that means is we no longer need to pass the `Wrapper` as the first argument to react-testing-library's render. We just pass the `ui` and react-testing-library will wrap it for us.

```js
return rtlRender(ui, {wrapper: Wrapper, ...options})
```

[02:22] If you call react-testing-library's `rerender` utility, then whatever UI you passed or `rerender` will also be wrapped inside that `Router`. That makes our `render` utility a little bit more flexible.

```js
function render (ui, {route, ...renderOptions} = {}) {
  const history = createMemoryHistory({
    initialEntries: [route || '/'],
  })

  function Wrapper({children}) {
    return <Router history={history}>{children}</Router>
  }

  return rtlRender({ui}, {wrapper: Wrapper, ...renderOptions})
}
```

[02:32] Another thing that I'm going to refactor here is this right here, I'm just going to take this `options` with the structure. Spread those, that's just a straight up refactor right there. Then we're going to pump off the `route` right here and so we can say, "Route."

[02:47] Now the options that we passed along to `rtlRender` will not include our own custom options for our own custom render method because we're plucking the route off of the options object. To make this a little bit more clear, I'm going to rename this to `renderOptions`.

[03:01] We're going to use the default syntax here so we don't have to do the or slash right here. We'll save that, make sure our test is still passing, re-factor is good.

```js
function render (ui, {route = '/', ...renderOptions} = {}) {
  const history = createMemoryHistory({
    initialEntries: [route],
  })
  ...
}
```

[03:10] Another thing that people might want to do is be able to create their own history. I'm going to take this and move it up into our de-structuring and we'll default it to create that history.

```js
function render (
  ui,
  {
    route = '/',
    const history = createMemoryHistory({initialEntries: [route]})
    ...renderOptions
  } = {}
) {
  function Wrapper({children}) {
    return <Router history={history}>{children}</Router>
  }

  return rtlRender({ui}, {wrapper: Wrapper, ...renderOptions})
}
```

[03:20] Now, that's functionally the same except now people can provide their own `history` if they want. If they don't, then we'll have a default to create a memory history ourselves using the `route` which can also default to `'/'`.

[03:33] The way that our tests look when we're using this utility is really simple if we need them to be simple or a little bit more complex if we need it to be more complex. We can customize it even further by providing a history and `createMemoryHistory` if we wanted to do it that way. This API gives us a lot of flexibility.

[03:50] One last thing that I'm going to do here is instead of just returning this wholesale, I'm going to return all the things that we get from `rtlRender` as well as the history that we've created ourselves so people can make assertions on the history if they want to.

```js
return {
  ...rtlRender({ui}, {wrapper: Wrapper, ...renderOptions}),
  history
}
```

[04:03] In review, our main goal here was to simplify our tests that are both doing a lot of the same things and not just in this file but in all the files of our projects that are using react-router components.

[04:14] We did that by creating a custom `render` method that has a similar API to the react-testing-library render method where it takes a `ui` and it takes an object of `options`. We have some custom options here that are specific to our use cases for a `route` and `history`.

[04:31] We have some defaults to make this API really nice and easy. Then we also create a `Wrapper` here so that when people call their rerender utility, it continues to be wrapped inside of the `Router`. Then we returned all the utilities that we get from `rtlRender` as well as the history.

[04:46] I would recommend that normally you put this type of utility `render` in a file somewhere in your project that's accessible to all of your tests in your code base and configure just to make it really easy to import that file anywhere you want using the module directory's configuration option.

[05:01] Then you can actually have that file just re-export all the things that are coming from testing library react so people can import your file rather than testing library react and they'll have all of the set up for them automatically.


If you want to ship your applications with confidence - and of course you do - you need an excellent suite of automated tests to make absolutely sure that when changes reach your users, nothing gets broken. To get this confidence, your tests need to realistically mimic how users actually use your React components. Otherwise, tests could pass when the application is broken in the real world.

In this course, we’ll write a series of render methods and run a range of tests to see how we can get the confidence we’re looking for, without giving up maintainability or test run-speed.

What's changed in Test React Components with Jest and React Testing Library

Intro to Test React Components with Jest and React Testing Library

Let’s start basic by using ReactDOM to render a simple React component to a <div> we create ourselves and assert that it’s rendering the right thing based on the props we provide.

Render a React Component for Testing

The Jest DOM library provides really useful extensions to jest’s built-in assertion library that will make it easier for us to write our test assertions (like toHaveTextContent). Let’s see how to use that in our project.

Use Jest DOM for Improved Assertions

Our tests are currently tightly coupled to the implementation of our component’s element structure. A refactor to that structure wont break our application, but will definitely break our tests because we’re testing implementation details. Let’s use DOM Testing Library to create a custom render function that will give us some helpful utilities for searching for elements in the DOM in the same way a user would.

Use DOM Testing Library to Write More Maintainable React Tests

Let’s create a simple render method to be able to reuse this functionality for our other tests. The render method we’ve created is similar to [the render method](https://testing-library.com/docs/react-testing-library/api#render) that’s provided by React Testing Library. Let’s swap our implementation to that!

Use React Testing Library to Render and Test React Components

While you’re writing your tests it can be helpful to see what the DOM looks like. You can do this with React Testing Library’s debug function which will log a formatted and syntax highlighted state of the DOM at the time it is called.

Debug the DOM State During Tests using React Testing Library’s debug Function

The fireEvent utility in React Testing Library supports all the events that you regularly use in the web (change, click, etc.). Let’s see how we can test our change event handler with an input.

Test React Component Event Handlers with fireEvent from React Testing Library

The User Event module is part of the Testing Library family of tools and lets you fire events on DOM nodes that more closely resemble the way your users will interact with your elements. Let’s refactor our fire event usages to use that instead.

Improve Test Confidence with the User Event Module

Sometimes it can be useful to change the props of a component you’ve rendered and make assertions about what’s rendered after that prop change has taken place. Let’s see how to go about doing this with React Testing Library.

Test Prop Updates with React Testing Library

It’s pretty straightforward to assert that a certain element is rendered with react-testing-library, but what if we want to ensure that something is NOT being rendered. For example, if we re-render our component with a different maximum amount leading to the error message being hidden. Let’s see how we can use the query* APIs from react-testing-library to assert that certain elements are not rendered.

Assert That Something is NOT Rendered with React Testing Library

While not all of accessibility testing of a web application can be automated, much of it can be and quite easily using [axe-core](https://github.com/dequelabs/axe-core) and [jest-axe](https://github.com/nickcolley/jest-axe). Let’s see how to integrate this with React Testing Library to help catch common accessibility issues.

Test Accessibility of Rendered React Components with jest-axe

If you have a component that makes HTTP requests, you’ll probably want to mock those out for UI unit and integration tests. Let’s see how to use jest’s built-in mocking capabilities to do that.

Mock HTTP Requests with jest.mock in React Component Tests

Mocking an API module works, but it's incomplete because we have to make all these assertions that we're calling it properly and then we'd need to write some other tests for the API module itself to make sure that it responds properly to those calls. 

In this lesson, I'll show you how you can use a package called [MSW](https://mswjs.io/) to intercept and handle those HTTP requests instead so we can get a great deal more confidence.

[Get the code on GitHub](https://github.com/kentcdodds/react-testing-library-course/blob/46d2608caaa404476c9224cd136aea270a739e6d/src/__tests__/http-msw-mock.js)

Mock HTTP Requests with MSW

There are some situations where you want to focus your tests on a particular component and not any of its children. There are other situations where you want to mock out the behavior of components that your component renders. In the case of react-transition-group, we don’t want to have to wait until the transition has completed before we can go on with our tests. Let’s see how we can mock the implementation of react-transition-group using jest.mock to make our tests more reliable and easier to write and maintain.

Mock react-transition-group in React Component Tests with jest.mock

If the user experiences an error while using your application you may want to send information to a monitoring tool to ensure you can be made aware of the error and deal with it as quickly as possible. Let’s see about testing a component that is responsible for this componentDidCatch error boundary using React Testing Library.

Test componentDidCatch Handler Error Boundaries with React Testing Library

When testing an error boundary, your console will be filled with console.error calls from React. Those can be a real distraction from the rest of the output for your tests. Let’s clean those up with jest.spyOn.

Hide console.error Logs when Testing Error Boundaries with jest.spyOn

Our error boundary has some other use cases that it supports and we should try to make sure our tests cover all those use cases, so let’s add a test to make sure the recovery feature of our error boundary works properly.

Ensure Error Boundaries Can Successfully Recover from Errors

We have a bit of repetition in our rerender calls here and it would be nice if we could avoid that. Let’s use the wrapper option for React Testing Library so we can avoid the repetition in our rerender calls.

Use React Testing Library’s Wrapper Option to Simplify using rerender

Normally using Test Driven Development (TDD) with UI is really difficult because testing utilities for UI often tie your tests closely to the implementation. Because React Testing Library is not this way, we can actually use it to TDD our UI. Let’s build the structure of a form using TDD with React Testing Library.

Test Drive the Development of a React Form with React Testing Library

Now that we have our react form structure written using TDD, let’s take it a step further and TDD our form’s submission with an onSubmit handler as well.

Test Drive the Submission of a React Form with React Testing Library

Once the data has been saved on the server, we’ll want to redirect the user to the home screen with react-router’s <Redirect /> component. Let’s go ahead and mock that component as well and verify that it’s being rendered with the correct props. We’ll have to make our test asynchronous so we can make that assertion because the <Redirect /> component is rendered after the async call happens.

Test Drive Mocking react-router’s Redirect Component on a Form Submission

It’s great that our form can be submitted, but we need to get that data to our server to actually save the post to the database. We don’t want to actually make requests to the server during these unit tests, so we’ll mock out the function responsible for doing that and assert that it’s being called with the right data. Then we’ll go ahead and implement that functionality in our form component.

Test Drive the API Call of a React Form with React Testing Library

Our post should probably have a creation date associated with it (typically you’ll add this on the server, but for the purposes of our example, we’ll do it on the client). Dates are notoriously challenging to test. There are existing libraries that help, but often you can get close enough to the desired effect for your assertions. Let’s go ahead and test that a correct creation date has been set for our posts.

Test Drive Assertions with Dates in React

A really important aspect of TDD is the refactor phase. A critical piece to making your tests easier to maintain is using code structure and values to communicate what is important and what is not. We’ll use data generation with [test-data-bot](https://github.com/jackfranklin/test-data-bot) to communicate that the specific data values are irrelevant and it’s just what kind of data it is. Let’s refactor our tests to communicate this effectively.

Use Generated Data in Tests with tests-data-bot to Improve Test Maintainability

We have the happy path covered for our post editor component, but what happens if there’s an error in saving the user’s information? We should probably show them an error message and give them the chance to try again. Let’s add a new test for this error case and implement some error handling.

Test Drive Error State with React Testing Library

We’ve finished with our post editor component, but let’s not forget the refactor phase! We have a bunch of duplicate logic between our two tests. When you have multiple tests with duplicate logic, it becomes hard for folks who come to maintain the tests later to identify what the differences between the tests are. This makes it harder to understand what the different features of the component are. So let’s refactor the tests slightly so we can communicate clearly what the important and unique parts of the tests are to make it easier for future maintainers.

Write a Custom Render Function to Share Code between Tests and Simplify Tests

Mocking the <Redirect /> component in react-router works, but it’s imperfect because we don’t know for sure that the user will be redirected properly. Alternatively, we can render our component within a Router with a custom implementation of a history via createMemoryHistory. Then we can make assertions on that history object.

Test React Components that Use the react-router Router Provider with createMemoryHistory

If the user enters a bad URL or there’s some kind of routing error, we should show the user a helpful error page. Let’s see how we can test that our page is wired up with the router properly to do this.

Initialize the `history` Object with a Bad Entry to Test the react-router no-match Route

Similar to react-router, we can render our component under test with the redux provider, our full redux store, and then we can interact with our component in the same way the user would and be confident that our component, action creators, and reducers are all working properly.

Test a Redux Connected React Component

There are definitely some scenarios where you want to test what a component will do given certain state in the store. Let’s see how we can initialize our redux provider with a store that has some custom initialized data. One thing that I should note here is that while it can be useful to do this, make sure you at least have one test that verifies that you can  into this state in the first place.

Test a Redux Connected React Component with Initialized State

It’s very common for our components to use state from the redux store (or to be refactored to use it eventually). Having to change our tests every time we do this would be frustrating. Let’s see how we can write a render method we could use to not worry about that implementation detail when it’s irrelevant for our tests. This could be combined with the custom render method for the router to be a single render method that supports all providers our components need.

Create a Custom Render Function to Simplify Tests of Redux Components

We’ve got a custom useCounter hook here and we want to make sure the increment and decrement functions it returns will update the count state that it returns. Because hooks must be run within the render phase of a component, we’ll create a simple component that simply uses the hook and render that component. One catch is that whenever there’s a state update in your tests, React needs you to wrap that in a call to act. We don’t have to do that for regular component tests that use React Testing Library utilities because those utilities manage the act call internally, but since we’re calling these state updater functions ourselves, we have to wrap things in act. Let’s do that for our useCounter hook.

Test a Custom React Hook with React’s Act Utility and a Test Component

Once we add tests for all the use cases of our hook, we’ll notice a bunch of common setup, so let’s put that in a setup function.

Write a Setup Function to Reduce Duplication of Testing Custom React Hooks

That setup function is pretty handy. Seems like a good opportunity for an abstraction. Well, we already have one! It’s called React Hooks Testing Library. Let’s swap our setup function for the renderHook function from @testing-library/react-hooks.

Test a Custom React Hook with renderHook from React Hooks Testing Library

Just like React Testing Library, React Hooks Testing Library has a rerender function which can be useful for testing changes to props. Let’s test what happens if the step option changes for our hook.

Test Updates to Your Custom React Hook with rerender from React Hooks Testing Library

When you use a React Portal, much of your component can be rendered outside the main DOM tree. Let’s see how we can use utilities provided by React Testing Library to allow us to select elements within the portal. To perform actions and assert on what’s rendered.

Test React Portals with within from React Testing Library

Sometimes your react component may need to do some cleanup work in the return value from useEffect or useLayoutEffect, or the componentWillUnmount lifecycle method for class components. Luckily for us, as far as React Testing Library is concerned, whichever of those you use is an implementation detail, so your test looks exactly the same regardless of how you implement it. Check out how you can test that simply with React Testing Library and a <Countdown /> component.

Test Unmounting a React Component with React Testing Library

You can get a huge amount of confidence and coverage from integration tests that test an entire page, or even your entire app. Let’s write a test that renders our whole app using React Testing Library and navigate around it like a normal user would. These tests are typically a bit longer, but they provide a huge amount of value.

Write React Application Integration Tests with React Testing Library

By using some of the get* queries, we’re assuming that those elements will be available on the page right when we execute the query. This is a bit of an implementation detail and it’d be cool if we could not make that assumption in our test. Let’s swap all those for find* queries.

Improve Reliability of Integration Tests using find* Queries from React Testing Library

Let’s take things a step closer to the way our app is used by using the User Event module for interacting with our app. Once we’ve done all this implementation detail-free testing, we’ll find out that we can drastically change the implementation of our app and our tests can give us confidence that our changes were successful. That’s fantastic!

Create a Custom render Function to Simplify Tests of react-router Components

Transcript

Create a Custom render Function to Simplify Tests of react-router Components