refactor: domain table hook architecture separation#296
Open
harishsundar-okta wants to merge 6 commits into
Open
refactor: domain table hook architecture separation#296harishsundar-okta wants to merge 6 commits into
harishsundar-okta wants to merge 6 commits into
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #296 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.47% 89.49% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 156 156
Lines 13070 13102 +32
Branches 1419 1798 +379
==========================================
+ Hits 11694 11726 +32
Misses 1376 1376 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
…nto refactor/domain-table-hook-architecture
rax7389
reviewed
May 29, 2026
Comment on lines
+20
to
+37
| vi.mock('@/hooks/my-organization/shared/services/use-domain-table-service', () => ({ | ||
| useDomainTableService: vi.fn(() => ({ | ||
| domains: [], | ||
| providers: [], | ||
| isFetching: false, | ||
| isCreating: false, | ||
| isDeleting: false, | ||
| isVerifying: false, | ||
| isLoadingProviders: false, | ||
| fetchProviders: vi.fn(), | ||
| fetchDomains: vi.fn(), | ||
| onCreateDomain: vi.fn(), | ||
| onVerifyDomain: vi.fn(), | ||
| onDeleteDomain: vi.fn(), | ||
| onAssociateToProvider: vi.fn(), | ||
| onDeleteFromProvider: vi.fn(), | ||
| })), | ||
| })); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
const createMockServiceReturn = (overrides = {}) => ({
domains: [],
providers: [],
isFetching: false,
isCreating: false,
isDeleting: false,
isVerifying: false,
isLoadingProviders: false,
fetchProviders: vi.fn(),
fetchDomains: vi.fn(),
onCreateDomain: vi.fn(),
onVerifyDomain: vi.fn(),
onDeleteDomain: vi.fn(),
onAssociateToProvider: vi.fn(),
onDeleteFromProvider: vi.fn(),
...overrides,
});
// Get mocked function reference once
import { useDomainTableService } from '@/hooks/my-organization/shared/services/use-domain-table-service';
const mockUseDomainTableService = vi.mocked(useDomainTableService);
// In tests - much cleaner:
it('should create domain...', async () => {
const mockOnCreateDomain = vi.fn().mockResolvedValue(mockDomain);
mockUseDomainTableService.mockReturnValue(
createMockServiceReturn({ onCreateDomain: mockOnCreateDomain })
);
// ... test
});
can we use this pattern instead of repeating same mock object multiple places? also have the base mock in separate mocks file
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done, created a reusable createMockDomainTableServiceReturn helper with override support.
| import { createTestQueryClientWrapper } from '@/tests/utils/test-provider'; | ||
| import type { UseDomainTableServiceOptions } from '@/types/my-organization/domain-management/domain-table-types'; | ||
|
|
||
| // ===== Mock packages ===== |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lets not have these auto generated comments as its public repo
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done, removed all section separator comments.
Comment on lines
+27
to
+52
| const createMockOptions = ( | ||
| overrides?: Partial<UseDomainTableServiceOptions>, | ||
| ): UseDomainTableServiceOptions => ({ | ||
| createAction: { | ||
| onBefore: vi.fn().mockReturnValue(true), | ||
| onAfter: vi.fn(), | ||
| }, | ||
| deleteAction: { | ||
| onBefore: vi.fn().mockReturnValue(true), | ||
| onAfter: vi.fn(), | ||
| }, | ||
| verifyAction: { | ||
| onBefore: vi.fn().mockReturnValue(true), | ||
| onAfter: vi.fn(), | ||
| }, | ||
| associateToProviderAction: { | ||
| onBefore: vi.fn().mockReturnValue(true), | ||
| onAfter: vi.fn(), | ||
| }, | ||
| deleteFromProviderAction: { | ||
| onBefore: vi.fn().mockReturnValue(true), | ||
| onAfter: vi.fn(), | ||
| }, | ||
| customMessages: {}, | ||
| ...overrides, | ||
| }); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we have them in separate mock file?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done, moved to the shared domain mocks file.
Comment on lines
+8
to
+18
| vi.mock('@/hooks/shared/use-translator', () => ({ | ||
| useTranslator: () => ({ t: (key: string) => key }), | ||
| })); | ||
|
|
||
| vi.mock('@/hooks/shared/use-error-handler', () => ({ | ||
| useErrorHandler: () => mockHandleError, | ||
| })); | ||
|
|
||
| vi.mock('@/components/auth0/shared/toast', () => ({ | ||
| showToast: vi.fn(), | ||
| })); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we use existing modular approach of mocking like
mockToast
useTranslatorModule
useErrorHandlerModule
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done, replaced inline toast mock with mockToast() from test utilities.
|
|
||
| const domainQueryKeys = { | ||
| all: ['domains'] as const, | ||
| list: () => [...domainQueryKeys.all, 'list'] as const, |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you we should have all the queries extracted and reuse from the core for each module
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Refactors the domain table hooks to follow the hook architecture pattern — two hooks internally, only one exposed publicly.
Why
The domain table component previously required consumers to manually wire together useDomainTable (data) and useDomainTableLogic (UI state), creating a fragile and complex public API. This standardizes on a single public hook pattern, consistent with the SSO provider table implementation.
What
Packages
packages/corepackages/reactexamplesReferences
Testing
How can this be verified? Note anything intentionally not covered by tests and why.
Checklist
Contributing