chore: Reduce enzymes usage 1/3

[timi-codes]

Description

Convert the list of unit tests to use react-testing-library instead of enzyme for the following files:

'app/components/Views/Root/index.test.tsx',
'app/components/Views/NavigationUnitTest/TestScreen3.test.js',
'app/components/Views/NavigationUnitTest/TestScreen2.test.js',
'app/components/Views/NavigationUnitTest/TestScreen1.test.js',
'app/components/Views/ImportPrivateKeySuccess/index.test.tsx',
'app/components/Views/AccountBackupStep1B/index.test.tsx',
'app/components/UI/WebviewProgressBar/index.test.tsx',
'app/components/UI/SeedphraseModal/index.test.tsx',
'app/components/UI/PhishingModal/index.test.tsx',
'app/components/UI/FoxScreen/index.test.tsx',
'app/components/UI/FadeView/index.test.tsx',
'app/components/UI/CustomAlert/index.test.tsx',
'app/components/UI/Confetti/index.test.tsx',
'app/components/UI/Collectibles/index.test.tsx',
'app/components/UI/Button/index.test.tsx',
'app/components/UI/AnimatedSpinner/index.test.tsx',
'app/components/UI/AddCustomToken/index.test.tsx',

Related issues

Fixes: #8616

Manual testing steps

Not Applicable

Screenshots/Recordings

Not Applicable

Pre-merge author checklist

• I’ve followed MetaMask Coding Standards.
• I've clearly explained what problem this PR is solving and how it is solved.
• I've linked related issues
• I've included manual testing steps
• I've included screenshots/recordings if applicable
• I’ve included tests if applicable
• I’ve documented my code using JSDoc format if applicable
• I’ve applied the right labels on the PR (see labeling guidelines). Not required for external contributors.
• I’ve properly set the pull request status:
  • In case it's not yet "ready for review", I've set it to "draft".
  • In case it's "ready for review", I've changed it from "draft" to "non-draft".

Pre-merge reviewer checklist

• I've manually tested the PR (e.g. pull and build branch, run the app, test code being changed).
• I confirm that this PR addresses all acceptance criteria described in the ticket it closes and includes the necessary testing evidence such as recordings and or screenshots.

[github-actions]

CLA Signature Action: All authors have signed the CLA. You may need to manually re-run the blocking PR check if it doesn't pass in a few minutes.

[Cal-L]

Left comments of simplified tests using existing utility functions

[Cal-L]

@timi-codes Left some comments

[timi-codes]

Thanks for the feedback @Cal-L

I have updated 15/17 of the test files and made the recommended changes. The remaining two files are app/components/Views/Root/index.test.tsx and app/components/UI/Confetti/index.test.tsx.

The root file snapshot render null and the confetti snapshot change every time because of the randomness of the Views.
Do you have any suggestion on how to fix this?

[Cal-L]

Thanks for the feedback @Cal-L

I have updated 15/17 of the test files and made the recommended changes. The remaining two files are app/components/Views/Root/index.test.tsx and app/components/UI/Confetti/index.test.tsx.

The root file snapshot render null and the confetti snapshot change every time because of the randomness of the Views. Do you have any suggestion on how to fix this?

On Confetti.test.tsx, since the components being tested have non deterministic styles, I'd recommend just mocking react-native-confetti and react-native-confetti-cannon for now:

jest.mock('react-native-confetti');
jest.mock('react-native-confetti-cannon');

The snapshot will reduce to only return null but that's fine for now since this isn't a critical component.

[Cal-L]

Thanks for the feedback @Cal-L

I have updated 15/17 of the test files and made the recommended changes. The remaining two files are app/components/Views/Root/index.test.tsx and app/components/UI/Confetti/index.test.tsx.

The root file snapshot render null and the confetti snapshot change every time because of the randomness of the Views. Do you have any suggestion on how to fix this?

For the Root component snapshot tests, you can update the test file to look like this:

After that, you can remove some of the mocks

Your Root snapshot should update and the output should remain deterministic

[Cal-L]

@timi-codes Left some comments regarding Confetti and Root components

[timi-codes]

Thanks for the feedback @Cal-L
I have updated 15/17 of the test files and made the recommended changes. The remaining two files are app/components/Views/Root/index.test.tsx and app/components/UI/Confetti/index.test.tsx.
The root file snapshot render null and the confetti snapshot change every time because of the randomness of the Views. Do you have any suggestion on how to fix this?

For the Root component snapshot tests, you can update the test file to look like this:

After that, you can remove some of the mocks Your Root snapshot should update and the output should remain deterministic

@Cal-L Thank you.

For the Root file, I was referring to app/components/Views/Root/index.test.tsx not app/components/Views/confirmations/components/SignatureRequest/Root/Root.test.tsx. However, I already fixed it by mocking configureStore.

All the files are now ready for review.

[Cal-L]

Left some comments @timi-codes

[Cal-L]

LGTM, thanks for your contribution!

[timi-codes]

Thank you @Cal-L . The 2/3 is also ready for review #8823

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 43.53%. Comparing base (bdba039) to head (f5e60c9).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8721      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   43.27%   43.53%   +0.26%     
==========================================
  Files        1271     1271              
  Lines       30916    30916              
  Branches     3092     3092              
==========================================
+ Hits        13378    13460      +82     
+ Misses      16765    16682      -83     
- Partials      773      774       +1     

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

[Cal-L]

@timi-codes Merging into a branch based on main and will follow up with a PR to merge into main.