Replacing the usage of getByTestId and data-testid

[jacobo-dominguez-wgu]

Description

This PR modernizes our unit tests by replacing getByTestId queries with more accessible, user-centric testing approaches as recommended by React Testing Library's query priority guidelines . In order to follow those modern standards for testing, all the occurrences of getByTestId and data-testid were replaced by alternatives like getByRole and getByText.
It closes #28

Previous PRs where asked for this change:

• feat(authz): [FC-0099] create an custom error boundery #11 (comment) (fixed somewhere else)
• feat: [FC-0099] allow deleting user's roles #13 (comment) (fixed somewhere else)
• feat(authz): [FC-0099] Manage action feedback using the Toast component. #26 (comment)
• feat: [FC-0099] add button & modal for adding new team members #3
• feat: [FC-0099] Add a new role to a library member #9

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @jacobo-dominguez-wgu!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/committers-frontend.

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 94.32%. Comparing base (a0dc22c) to head (561c5bb).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master      #30   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.32%   94.32%           
=======================================
  Files          44       44           
  Lines         881      881           
  Branches      176      176           
=======================================
  Hits          831      831           
  Misses         48       48           
  Partials        2        2           

☔ 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.

[tonybusa]

This pull request does well to address the requirement of removing getTestId and improve the querying best practices of React Testing Library. However, it did raise my concern that most of the tests rely on mocking out components. Particularly, mocking out components that exist within the application. We should strive to test the application components as-is as much as possible but that should likely be tracked in a separate issue.

[jacobo-dominguez-wgu]

This pull request does well to address the requirement of removing getTestId and improve the querying best practices of React Testing Library. However, it did raise my concern that most of the tests rely on mocking out components. Particularly, mocking out components that exist within the application. We should strive to test the application components as-is as much as possible but that should likely be tracked in a separate issue.

Thanks! I agree we should not be mocking components, I tried to delete some of them but the PR will grow a lot an that was not part of the scope. We definitely should create a new issue to address that.

[arbrandes]

Thanks a bunch! Not only did you use address the main issue, you also added aria-labels, which is great for accessibility. 👍🏼