New Cypress Test for HCX Workflow in the platform #9007
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes introduce a comprehensive set of end-to-end tests for the HCX Claims configuration and patient management workflows using Cypress. New test cases are added for verifying patient filtering, insurance handling, and consultation interactions. Additionally, several classes are updated with new methods to enhance functionality related to patient details and insurance policy management. The Cypress workflow configuration is also modified to accommodate new environment variables and job conditions for testing in different scenarios. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Poem
Warning There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool’s configuration or disable the tool if it’s a critical failure. 🔧 eslint
cypress/e2e/hcx_spec/HcxClaims.cy.tsOops! Something went wrong! :( ESLint: 8.57.1 Error: Failed to load parser '@typescript-eslint/parser' declared in '.eslintrc.json': Cannot find module '@typescript-eslint/parser'
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
✅ Deploy Preview for care-ohc ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
Deploying care-fe with
|
| Latest commit: |
fc4f060
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://061a9249.care-fe.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://hcx-develop.care-fe.pages.dev |
CARE
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Project |
CARE
|
| Branch Review |
hcx-develop
|
| Run status |
|
| Run duration | 04m 47s |
| Commit |
|
| Committer | Mohammed Nihal |
| View all properties for this run ↗︎ | |
| Test results | |
|---|---|
Failures
|
0
|
Flaky
|
0
|
Pending
|
0
|
Skipped
|
0
|
Passing
|
128
|
| View all changes introduced in this branch ↗︎ | |
|
👋 Hi, @nihal467, This message is automatically generated by prince-chrismc/label-merge-conflicts-action so don't hesitate to report issues/improvements there. |
github-actions
bot
added
Deploy-Failed
|
@khavinshankan should we keep the hcx in env or is it ok to enable them in staging |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 9
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (12)
cypress/pageobject/Hcx/HcxClaims.ts (1)
1-1: Add JSDoc documentation and interface definition.Consider adding class-level documentation and defining an interface for better maintainability and type safety:
+interface IHcxClaims { + selectEligiblePolicy(policy: string): void; + verifyPolicyEligibity(): void; +} + +/** + * Page object class for HCX Claims functionality + * Handles insurance policy selection and eligibility verification + */ export class HcxClaims {cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientConsultation.ts (1)
Inconsistent wait handling and missing documentation needs attention
The verification confirms the review's concerns:
Inconsistent wait handling:
- Only 3 wait statements in the entire class
selectConsultationStatus: 5000ms waitclickEditConsultationButton: 3000ms waitclickClaimsButton: API response wait- Other similar async operations (clicks, types, selects) have no waits
TypeScript types are actually present for method parameters, contrary to the review's concern
No JSDoc documentation exists for the class or its methods
Recommendation:
- Standardize wait handling by using consistent wait strategies for similar operations
- Add comprehensive JSDoc documentation
- Consider extracting wait times into class-level constants
🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-132: Consider class-level improvements for maintainability.The class could benefit from several improvements:
- Add TypeScript types for method parameters
- Add JSDoc documentation for methods
- Standardize wait handling across methods
Example improvements:
/** * Page object representing the Patient Consultation page. * Provides methods to interact with consultation-related elements. */ export class PatientConsultationPage { /** * Clicks the Claims button and waits for the policy status API response. * @throws {Error} If the API request fails or times out */ clickClaimsButton(): void { // ... existing implementation } /** * Selects the consultation status from the dropdown. * @param status - The status to select */ selectConsultationStatus(status: string): void { // ... existing implementation } }Also, consider extracting common wait times into class constants and standardizing their usage across methods.
Let's check for inconsistent wait handling:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Find all cy.wait occurrences and their timing values rg "cy\.wait\(" cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientConsultation.tsLength of output: 180
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's check for any existing type definitions and JSDoc comments rg "\/\*\*" -A 3 cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientConsultation.ts # Also check if there are any other methods with potential async operations rg "intercept|click|type|select" cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientConsultation.tsLength of output: 2758
cypress/e2e/hcx_spec/HcxClaims.cy.ts (5)
8-19: Consider improving test data management and type safety.While the setup is functional, consider these improvements:
- Move test data to a separate fixture file for better maintainability
- Add type annotations for constants
- Use enums or constants for identifiers like "insurance-details-0"
Example implementation:
// testData/hcx.fixture.ts export interface HcxTestData { patientName: string; insuranceIdentifier: string; memberId: string; policyId: string; insurerName: string; } export const HCX_TEST_DATA: HcxTestData = { patientName: "Dummy Patient 14", insuranceIdentifier: "insurance-details-0", memberId: "001", policyId: "100", insurerName: "Demo Payor" };
20-29: Consider enhancing URL verification.The URL verification could be more robust by:
- Adding a timeout
- Including an assertion for the exact URL pattern
- cy.awaitUrl("/patients"); + cy.url({ timeout: 10000 }).should('include', '/patients'); + cy.location('pathname').should('match', /^\/patients$/);Also applies to: 94-96
66-79: Enhance mock response structure and typing.The mock response could benefit from proper typing and more realistic test data.
interface EligibilityResponse { api_call_id: string; correlation_id: string; timestamp: number; consultation: string; policy: string; outcome: 'Complete' | 'Pending' | 'Failed'; limit: number; } const mockResponse: EligibilityResponse = { api_call_id: "bfa228f0-cdfa-4426-bebe-26e996079dbb", correlation_id: "86ae030c-1b33-4e52-a6f1-7a74a48111eb", timestamp: Date.now(), consultation: consultationId, policy: patientPolicyId, outcome: "Complete", limit: 1, }; cy.intercept("POST", "/api/hcx/check_eligibility", (req) => { req.reply({ statusCode: 200, body: mockResponse }); }).as("checkEligibility");🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks
70-70: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
31-92: Consider breaking down the test for better maintainability.The test case covers multiple steps and could be split into smaller, focused test cases or use custom commands for common operations.
Example structure:
describe('HCX Claims workflow', () => { it('should update patient insurance details', () => { // Insurance update steps }); it('should verify policy eligibility', () => { // Eligibility check steps }); // More focused test cases });Also consider creating custom commands for common operations:
// commands.ts Cypress.Commands.add('updatePatientInsurance', (details) => { // Insurance update steps });🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks
70-70: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
88-91: Add more comprehensive assertions.The eligibility check verification could be more thorough.
cy.wait("@checkEligibility").then((interception) => { const response = interception.response.body; - expect(response.outcome).to.equal("Complete"); + expect(response).to.have.property('consultation').equal(consultationId); + expect(response).to.have.property('policy').equal(patientPolicyId); + expect(response).to.have.property('outcome').equal("Complete"); + expect(response.timestamp).to.be.a('number'); });src/components/HCX/PolicyEligibilityCheck.tsx (1)
Line range hint
74-143: Consider enhancing error handling for eligibility check.While the component handles successful eligibility checks well, it could benefit from explicit error handling in the
checkEligibilityfunction. Consider showing an error notification when the API call fails.Here's a suggested improvement:
const checkEligibility = async () => { if (!selectedPolicy || isPolicyEligible()) return; setIsCheckingEligibility(true); - const { res } = await request(routes.hcx.policies.checkEligibility, { - body: { policy: selectedPolicy.id }, - }); - - if (res?.ok) { - Notification.Success({ msg: t("checking_policy_eligibility") }); - } + try { + const { res } = await request(routes.hcx.policies.checkEligibility, { + body: { policy: selectedPolicy.id }, + }); + + if (res?.ok) { + Notification.Success({ msg: t("checking_policy_eligibility") }); + } else { + Notification.Error({ msg: t("error_checking_eligibility") }); + } + } catch (error) { + Notification.Error({ msg: t("error_checking_eligibility") }); + } setIsCheckingEligibility(false); };cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientCreation.ts (2)
223-225: LGTM! Consider adding error handling.The new method follows good POM practices and clearly encapsulates the update details functionality.
Consider adding error handling for cases where the element might not be present:
clickPatientUpdateDetails() { - cy.verifyAndClickElement("#update-patient-details", "Update Details"); + cy.verifyAndClickElement("#update-patient-details", "Update Details") + .should('exist') + .then($el => { + if (!$el) { + throw new Error('Update Details button not found'); + } + }); }
Line range hint
1-236: Consider enhancing the Page Object Model implementation.The class demonstrates good POM practices, but could be further improved for maintainability and reusability:
- Consider extracting selectors to a separate constants file:
// selectors.ts export const PATIENT_SELECTORS = { UPDATE_DETAILS: '#update-patient-details', PHONE_NUMBER: '#phone_number', // ... other selectors };
- Consider grouping related methods into separate classes/modules:
- PatientCreationPage
- PatientUpdatePage
- PatientVerificationPage
- Consider adding JSDoc comments for better documentation and type hints.
These improvements would:
- Make selectors more maintainable
- Improve code organization
- Enhance code documentation
- Make the test suite more scalable
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientRegistration.cy.ts (1)
178-181: LGTM! Consider extracting insurance setup into a helper method.The insurance selection implementation is clean and consistent. Since this pattern is repeated twice, consider extracting it into a helper method to improve test maintainability:
// Helper method in PatientInsurance class addInsuranceDetails(insuranceId: string, subscriberId: string, policyId: string, insurerName: string) { this.clickAddInsruanceDetails(); this.typePatientInsuranceDetail(insuranceId, "subscriber_id", subscriberId); this.typePatientInsuranceDetail(insuranceId, "policy_id", policyId); this.selectPatientInsurerName(insuranceId, insurerName); } // Usage in test patientInsurance.addInsuranceDetails( patientOneFirstInsuranceId, patientOneFirstSubscriberId, patientOneFirstPolicyId, patientOneFirstInsurerName );Also applies to: 193-196
src/components/Patient/PatientHome.tsx (1)
Line range hint
681-714: LGTM! Consider these improvements for better maintainability.The update patient details button implementation is solid with proper authorization and permission checks. However, consider these enhancements:
- Extract the facility permission check to a reusable function
- Move the error message to translation keys for i18n support
Consider this refactor:
+ const canUpdatePatientDetails = (user: any, patientFacility: string) => { + const showAllFacilityUsers = ["DistrictAdmin", "StateAdmin"]; + return showAllFacilityUsers.includes(user.user_type) || + user.home_facility_object?.id === patientFacility; + }; <ButtonV2 id="update-patient-details" className="mt-4 w-full" disabled={!patientData.is_active} authorizeFor={NonReadOnlyUsers} onClick={() => { - const showAllFacilityUsers = ["DistrictAdmin", "StateAdmin"]; - if (!showAllFacilityUsers.includes(authUser.user_type) && - authUser.home_facility_object?.id !== patientData.facility - ) { + if (!canUpdatePatientDetails(authUser, patientData.facility)) { Notification.Error({ - msg: "Oops! Non-Home facility users don't have permission to perform this action.", + msg: t("error.non_home_facility_permission"), }); } else { navigate(`/facility/${patientData?.facility}/patient/${id}/update`); } }} >
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
.env(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/hcx_spec/HcxClaims.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientHomepage.cy.ts(0 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientRegistration.cy.ts(3 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Hcx/HcxClaims.ts(1 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientConsultation.ts(2 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientCreation.ts(1 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientInsurance.ts(2 hunks)src/components/HCX/PolicyEligibilityCheck.tsx(2 hunks)src/components/Patient/PatientHome.tsx(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientHomepage.cy.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Gitleaks
cypress/e2e/hcx_spec/HcxClaims.cy.ts
70-70: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
cypress/pageobject/Hcx/HcxClaims.ts (1)
1-9: Enhance test reliability and maintainability.
Consider the following improvements to align with Cypress best practices:
- Add constants for selectors and text strings
- Implement proper wait strategies
- Verify custom commands are properly typed
+ const SELECTORS = {
+ INSURANCE_POLICY: "[data-testid=insurance-policy-select]",
+ ELIGIBILITY_CHECK: "[data-testid=eligibility-check-button]"
+ } as const;
+
+ const TEXTS = {
+ CHECK_ELIGIBILITY: "Check Eligibility",
+ ELIGIBILITY_INITIATED: "Eligibility check initiated"
+ } as const;
+
export class HcxClaims {
selectEligiblePolicy(policy: string): void {
- cy.clickAndSelectOption("#select-insurance-policy", policy);
+ cy.clickAndSelectOption(SELECTORS.INSURANCE_POLICY, policy, {
+ timeout: 10000
+ });
}
- verifyPolicyEligibity() {
- cy.verifyAndClickElement("#check-eligibity", "Check Eligibility");
+ verifyPolicyEligibility(): void {
+ cy.verifyAndClickElement(
+ SELECTORS.ELIGIBILITY_CHECK,
+ TEXTS.CHECK_ELIGIBILITY,
+ { timeout: 10000 }
+ );
+ cy.contains(TEXTS.ELIGIBILITY_INITIATED, {
+ timeout: 10000
+ }).should("be.visible");
}
}Let's verify if the custom commands are properly defined:
✅ Verification successful
Consider adding timeout options and data-testid selectors for better test stability
The custom commands clickAndSelectOption and verifyAndClickElement are properly defined and typed in the codebase. However, the implementation can be improved:
- Use data-testid selectors instead of id selectors:
- "#select-insurance-policy"
+ "[data-testid=insurance-policy-select]"
- "#check-eligibity"
+ "[data-testid=eligibility-check]"- Add timeout options for better stability:
- cy.clickAndSelectOption("#select-insurance-policy", policy);
+ cy.clickAndSelectOption("[data-testid=insurance-policy-select]", policy, {
+ timeout: 10000
+ });- Fix typo in method name:
- verifyPolicyEligibity
+ verifyPolicyEligibility- Add verification for successful eligibility check:
verifyPolicyEligibility(): void {
cy.verifyAndClickElement(
"[data-testid=eligibility-check]",
"Check Eligibility",
+ { timeout: 10000 }
);
+ cy.contains("Eligibility check initiated", {
+ timeout: 10000
+ }).should("be.visible");
}🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if custom commands are defined in support/commands.ts
rg -t ts "Cypress.Commands.add\(('|\")(?:clickAndSelectOption|verifyAndClickElement)('|\")" cypress/support/
Length of output: 114
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for custom commands and their types
fd "commands\.(ts|js|d\.ts)" --type f
# Also search for these specific command names anywhere in the codebase
rg -t ts "(?:clickAndSelectOption|verifyAndClickElement)"
Length of output: 5359
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the implementation of these commands
cat cypress/support/commands.ts
# Also check the type definitions
cat cypress/support/index.ts
Length of output: 8295
cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientInsurance.ts (2)
12-15: LGTM! Well-structured page object method.
The new selectPatientInsurerName method follows good page object pattern practices by:
- Encapsulating the selector logic
- Using clear parameter names
- Maintaining single responsibility
36-36: Verify the impact of simplified verification logic.
The removal of HCX-specific checks simplifies the verification, but let's ensure this doesn't impact test coverage.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more context about the specific changes and their impact by checking the implementation details.
Based on the gathered information, I can now provide the final response:
Simplified verification logic is safe to proceed
The verification changes are isolated to basic UI assertions and don't impact HCX-specific test coverage:
- The
verifyPatientPolicyDetailsmethod is only used inPatientRegistration.cy.tsfor standard insurance verification - HCX-specific tests are separate in
HcxClaims.cy.tsand don't rely on this verification logic - The simplified assertions still verify all required insurance details (subscriberId, policyId, insurerName)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any existing HCX-specific tests that might rely on the removed verification logic
# Search for HCX-related test files and their assertions
echo "Searching for HCX-related test files..."
rg -l "hcx" cypress/e2e
rg -l "HCX" cypress/e2e
# Search for tests using verifyPatientPolicyDetails
echo "Checking usage of verifyPatientPolicyDetails..."
rg "verifyPatientPolicyDetails" cypress/e2e -A 5
Length of output: 1246
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the implementation of verifyPatientPolicyDetails and related HCX tests
echo "Checking verifyPatientPolicyDetails implementation..."
rg -A 10 "verifyPatientPolicyDetails" cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientInsurance.ts
echo "\nChecking HCX claims test implementation..."
rg "expect.*contain" cypress/e2e/hcx_spec/HcxClaims.cy.ts
Length of output: 740
cypress/e2e/hcx_spec/HcxClaims.cy.ts (1)
1-7: LGTM! Imports are well-organized.
The imports are properly structured and all necessary page objects are imported for the test suite.
src/components/HCX/PolicyEligibilityCheck.tsx (1)
74-74: LGTM! Test automation enhancement.
The addition of the id attribute enhances the component's testability, making it easier to target in Cypress tests.
cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientRegistration.cy.ts (1)
60-60: LGTM! Verify these payor names match the staging environment.
The change from generic insurer names to specific payor names (Demo Payor, Care Payor) improves test readability. However, let's ensure these names match the available options in the staging environment.
Also applies to: 64-64
✅ Verification successful
Payor names are consistently used across HCX and Patient Registration tests
The verification shows that:
- "Demo Payor" and "Care Payor" are used consistently in both
HcxClaims.cy.tsandPatientRegistration.cy.ts - These names are used with the
selectPatientInsurerNamemethod in both test files - The implementation appears to be part of a coordinated update for HCX workflow testing
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for payor name references to ensure consistency
# Test: Look for these payor names in other test files and fixtures
rg -g '*.{ts,json,js}' -i "Demo Payor|Care Payor" cypress/
Length of output: 345
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check if these payor names are defined in any fixture files or configuration
rg -g '*.{json,js}' -i "payor.*data|insurers.*data|test.*data" cypress/fixtures/
Length of output: 82
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's also check for any environment-specific configuration files
fd -e json -e js "environment|config" cypress/
Length of output: 70
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any mock data or setup files
rg -g '*.{ts,js}' "beforeEach|cy\.intercept.*payor|cy\.fixture.*payor" cypress/
Length of output: 2290
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check how these payor names are being used in the test files
rg -A 5 "selectPatientInsurerName|insurerName" cypress/e2e/
Length of output: 1510
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's also check for any API mocks or intercepts related to insurers/payors
rg "cy\.intercept.*insurer|cy\.intercept.*payor" cypress/
Length of output: 59
cypress/pageobject/Hcx/HcxClaims.ts
Outdated
| verifyPolicyEligibity() { | ||
| cy.verifyAndClickElement("#check-eligibity", "Check Eligibility"); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix typo in method name and improve error handling.
The method has several issues that should be addressed:
- "Eligibity" is misspelled (should be "Eligibility")
- Add error handling and assertions to verify the operation succeeded
- verifyPolicyEligibity() {
+ verifyPolicyEligibility(): void {
cy.verifyAndClickElement("#check-eligibity", "Check Eligibility");
+ cy.get("#check-eligibity").should("not.be.disabled");
+ cy.contains("Eligibility check initiated").should("be.visible");
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| verifyPolicyEligibity() { | |
| cy.verifyAndClickElement("#check-eligibity", "Check Eligibility"); | |
| } | |
| verifyPolicyEligibility(): void { | |
| cy.verifyAndClickElement("#check-eligibity", "Check Eligibility"); | |
| cy.get("#check-eligibity").should("not.be.disabled"); | |
| cy.contains("Eligibility check initiated").should("be.visible"); | |
| } |
| selectEligiblePolicy(policy: string) { | ||
| cy.clickAndSelectOption("#select-insurance-policy", policy); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve selector maintainability and add type safety.
Consider using data-testid attributes instead of CSS IDs for more reliable test selectors:
- selectEligiblePolicy(policy: string) {
+ selectEligiblePolicy(policy: string): void {
- cy.clickAndSelectOption("#select-insurance-policy", policy);
+ cy.clickAndSelectOption("[data-testid=insurance-policy-select]", policy);
+ cy.get("[data-testid=insurance-policy-select]")
+ .should("contain.text", policy);
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
.env
Outdated
| @@ -14,4 +14,5 @@ ESLINT_NO_DEV_ERRORS=true | |||
| CARE_CDN_URL="https://egov-s3-facility-10bedicu.s3.amazonaws.com https://egov-s3-patient-data-10bedicu.s3.amazonaws.com http://localhost:4566" | |||
| REACT_ALLOWED_LOCALES="en,hi,ta,ml,mr,kn" | |||
|
|
|||
| REACT_ENABLED_APPS="" | |||
| REACT_ENABLED_APPS="ohcnetwork/care_hcx_fe@main" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider using a specific version instead of @main.
Pinning to the main branch (@main) could introduce instability as the main branch can change frequently. Consider using a specific version or git tag to ensure consistent behavior across environments.
-REACT_ENABLED_APPS="ohcnetwork/care_hcx_fe@main"
+REACT_ENABLED_APPS="ohcnetwork/[email protected]"Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
.env
Outdated
| @@ -14,4 +14,5 @@ | |||
| CARE_CDN_URL="https://egov-s3-facility-10bedicu.s3.amazonaws.com https://egov-s3-patient-data-10bedicu.s3.amazonaws.com http://localhost:4566" | |||
| REACT_ALLOWED_LOCALES="en,hi,ta,ml,mr,kn" | |||
|
|
|||
| REACT_ENABLED_APPS="" | |||
| REACT_ENABLED_APPS="ohcnetwork/care_hcx_fe@main" | |||
| REACT_ENABLE_HCX=true | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Environment-specific configuration for HCX should be moved to environment-specific files
The codebase has a .env.docker file and supports environment-specific configurations as evidenced by:
- References to
.env.localin setup scripts - Multiple environment variables used throughout the codebase
- Configuration handling in
care.config.ts
Moving the HCX feature flag to environment-specific files would align with the existing configuration patterns and provide better control over where HCX is enabled.
- Create
.env.localfor local development - Move
REACT_ENABLE_HCXfrom.envto appropriate environment-specific files - Consider documenting the environment configuration in README.md
🔗 Analysis chain
Consider environment-specific configuration for HCX feature flag.
Based on the PR discussion about whether to keep HCX in the environment, having REACT_ENABLE_HCX=true in the base .env file will affect all environments. Consider moving this configuration to environment-specific files (e.g., .env.staging, .env.production) to have better control over where HCX is enabled.
Let's check if environment-specific files exist:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for environment-specific .env files
echo "Checking for environment-specific .env files..."
fd -t f "^\.env\." --exclude ".env.example"
Length of output: 356
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for environment-specific .env files including hidden files
echo "Checking for environment-specific .env files..."
fd -H -t f "^\.env\." --exclude ".env.example"
# Also check if there are any references to environment-specific configurations in documentation or config files
echo -e "\nChecking for environment configuration references..."
rg -i "env\." -g "!{.git,node_modules}/*" -g "!*.lock" -g "!*.log"
Length of output: 6657
| clickManagePatientButton() { | ||
| cy.verifyAndClickElement("#show-more", "Manage Patient"); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider improving selector specificity and method consistency.
- The
#show-moreselector is generic and could cause issues if multiple such elements exist on the page. - This method overlaps with the existing
clickEditConsultationButtonwhich also clicks "Manage Patient".
Consider these improvements:
clickManagePatientButton() {
- cy.verifyAndClickElement("#show-more", "Manage Patient");
+ cy.get("#consultation-buttons") // Add parent container for better specificity
+ .find("#show-more")
+ .should("contain", "Manage Patient")
+ .click();
+ cy.wait(3000); // Add appropriate wait time or better, wait for a specific element/network request
}Also, consider consolidating this with clickEditConsultationButton to avoid duplication of the "Manage Patient" click functionality.
Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| clickClaimsButton() { | ||
| cy.get("#log-update").scrollIntoView(); | ||
| cy.intercept(/\/api\/hcx\/policy\/\?.*/).as("policyStatus"); | ||
| cy.get("#consultation-buttons").contains("Claims").click(); | ||
| cy.wait("@policyStatus").its("response.statusCode").should("eq", 200); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance API handling and test reliability.
The current implementation has several potential reliability issues:
- Hard-coded 200 status check might be too strict
- API route pattern could be more specific
- Missing error handling
- No timeout specified for cy.wait
Consider these improvements:
clickClaimsButton() {
cy.get("#log-update").scrollIntoView();
- cy.intercept(/\/api\/hcx\/policy\/\?.*/).as("policyStatus");
+ cy.intercept({
+ method: 'GET',
+ url: '/api/hcx/policy/*'
+ }).as("policyStatus");
cy.get("#consultation-buttons").contains("Claims").click();
- cy.wait("@policyStatus").its("response.statusCode").should("eq", 200);
+ cy.wait("@policyStatus", { timeout: 10000 })
+ .then((interception) => {
+ expect(interception.response?.statusCode).to.be.oneOf([200, 201, 204]);
+ // Add additional response validation if needed
+ });
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| clickClaimsButton() { | |
| cy.get("#log-update").scrollIntoView(); | |
| cy.intercept(/\/api\/hcx\/policy\/\?.*/).as("policyStatus"); | |
| cy.get("#consultation-buttons").contains("Claims").click(); | |
| cy.wait("@policyStatus").its("response.statusCode").should("eq", 200); | |
| } | |
| clickClaimsButton() { | |
| cy.get("#log-update").scrollIntoView(); | |
| cy.intercept({ | |
| method: 'GET', | |
| url: '/api/hcx/policy/*' | |
| }).as("policyStatus"); | |
| cy.get("#consultation-buttons").contains("Claims").click(); | |
| cy.wait("@policyStatus", { timeout: 10000 }) | |
| .then((interception) => { | |
| expect(interception.response?.statusCode).to.be.oneOf([200, 201, 204]); | |
| // Add additional response validation if needed | |
| }); | |
| } |
| clickViewConsultationButton() { | ||
| cy.verifyAndClickElement( | ||
| "#view_consulation_updates", | ||
| "View Consultation / Consultation Updates", | ||
| ); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix typo in selector and consider adding wait handling.
The selector contains a typo: #view_consulation_updates should be #view_consultation_updates. Also, consider adding wait handling after the click if there's a page load or state change.
Apply this diff:
clickViewConsultationButton() {
cy.verifyAndClickElement(
- "#view_consulation_updates",
+ "#view_consultation_updates",
"View Consultation / Consultation Updates",
);
+ cy.wait(3000); // Add appropriate wait time or better, wait for a specific element/network request
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| cy.url().then((url) => { | ||
| const urlRegex = | ||
| /facility\/([^/]+)\/patient\/([^/]+)\/consultation\/([^/]+)/; | ||
| const match = url.match(urlRegex); | ||
| if (match) { | ||
| consultationId = match[3]; | ||
| } | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve consultation ID extraction reliability.
The current URL parsing approach could fail silently. Consider adding error handling and type safety.
cy.url().then((url) => {
const urlRegex =
/facility\/([^/]+)\/patient\/([^/]+)\/consultation\/([^/]+)/;
const match = url.match(urlRegex);
- if (match) {
+ if (!match) {
+ throw new Error(`Failed to extract consultation ID from URL: ${url}`);
+ }
+ // Type assertion for better type safety
+ const [, facilityId, patientId, extractedConsultationId] = match as RegExpMatchArray;
- consultationId = match[3];
- }
+ consultationId = extractedConsultationId;
});📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| cy.url().then((url) => { | |
| const urlRegex = | |
| /facility\/([^/]+)\/patient\/([^/]+)\/consultation\/([^/]+)/; | |
| const match = url.match(urlRegex); | |
| if (match) { | |
| consultationId = match[3]; | |
| } | |
| }); | |
| cy.url().then((url) => { | |
| const urlRegex = | |
| /facility\/([^/]+)\/patient\/([^/]+)\/consultation\/([^/]+)/; | |
| const match = url.match(urlRegex); | |
| if (!match) { | |
| throw new Error(`Failed to extract consultation ID from URL: ${url}`); | |
| } | |
| // Type assertion for better type safety | |
| const [, facilityId, patientId, extractedConsultationId] = match as RegExpMatchArray; | |
| consultationId = extractedConsultationId; | |
| }); |
| @@ -139,6 +140,7 @@ export default function HCXPolicyEligibilityCheck({ | |||
| )} | |||
| /> | |||
| <ButtonV2 | |||
| id="check-eligibity" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix typo in button id attribute.
There's a typo in the button's id: "check-eligibity" should be "check-eligibility". This could affect test reliability since Cypress tests will need to use this exact id.
Apply this fix:
- id="check-eligibity"
+ id="check-eligibility"📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| id="check-eligibity" | |
| id="check-eligibility" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
.github/workflows/cypress.yaml (2)
21-22: Consider making HCX configuration more flexible
- The hard-coded main branch in
REACT_ENABLED_APPScould cause issues if the HCX frontend repo changes branches. Consider making it configurable based on the PR target branch.REACT_ENABLE_HCXis always set to true, but based on the PR discussion about "whether to keep HCX in env", consider making this configurable per environment.Consider this approach:
- REACT_ENABLED_APPS: "ohcnetwork/care_hcx_fe@main" - REACT_ENABLE_HCX: true + REACT_ENABLED_APPS: "ohcnetwork/care_hcx_fe@${{ github.event.pull_request.base.ref }}" + REACT_ENABLE_HCX: ${{ github.event.pull_request.base.ref == 'staging' }}
Line range hint
89-91: Consider pinning Chrome version for reproducible testsThe Chrome installation step downloads the latest version, which could lead to inconsistent test behavior across different runs. Consider pinning to a specific version for better reproducibility.
- sudo wget -q https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_amd64.deb + CHROME_VERSION="119.0.6045.105" + sudo wget -q https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/pool/main/g/google-chrome-stable/google-chrome-stable_${CHROME_VERSION}-1_amd64.deb
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/cypress.yaml(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
.github/workflows/cypress.yaml (2)
Line range hint 92-108: LGTM! Well-structured test execution strategy
The separation of forked vs non-forked PR test execution is well implemented with appropriate security considerations. The parallel test execution and artifact handling are properly configured.
Also applies to: 134-150
Line range hint 1-150: Verify HCX test configuration in other environments
The workflow changes appropriately support HCX testing, but we should verify the configuration in other environments.
✅ Verification successful
HCX configuration is appropriately scoped to Cypress tests only
After reviewing all workflow files, I can confirm that the HCX-related environment variables (REACT_ENABLE_HCX and REACT_ENABLED_APPS: "ohcnetwork/care_hcx_fe@main") are correctly configured only in the Cypress test workflow. This is appropriate since:
- The configuration is specific to testing environment
- No other workflow files require HCX-specific configuration
- The deployment workflows handle environment-specific configurations through their respective infrastructure
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for any existing HCX configurations in other workflow files
echo "Checking for HCX configurations in other workflow files..."
fd -e yaml -e yml . .github/workflows/ --exec rg -l "REACT_ENABLE_HCX|care_hcx_fe"
# Check for environment-specific configurations
echo "Checking for environment-specific workflow configurations..."
fd -e yaml -e yml . .github/workflows/ --exec rg -l "staging.*environment|production.*environment"
Length of output: 474
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check all workflow files to understand the environment configurations
echo "=== Listing all workflow files ==="
fd -e yaml -e yml . .github/workflows/ -x cat {}
# Let's also check if there are any environment files that might contain HCX configs
echo "=== Checking for environment files ==="
fd -e env -e env.example . -x cat {}
Length of output: 26411
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
cypress/e2e/hcx_spec/HcxClaims.cy.ts (3)
1-7: Standardize import paths for better maintainability.The imports use a mix of relative (
../../pageobject/) and absolute (pageobject/) paths. Consider standardizing to absolute paths throughout.-import LoginPage from "../../pageobject/Login/LoginPage"; -import { PatientPage } from "../../pageobject/Patient/PatientCreation"; +import LoginPage from "pageobject/Login/LoginPage"; +import { PatientPage } from "pageobject/Patient/PatientCreation";
14-18: Consider moving test data to fixtures.Hardcoded test data makes tests brittle and harder to maintain. Consider moving these values to a Cypress fixture file.
Create a new file
cypress/fixtures/hcx-test-data.json:{ "patientName": "Dummy Patient 14", "insuranceIdentifier": "insurance-details-0", "memberId": "001", "policyId": "100", "insurerName": "Demo Payor" }Then load it in the test:
before(() => { cy.fixture('hcx-test-data').as('testData'); });
66-79: Add response schema validation for the eligibility check.The mock response structure should be validated against a schema to ensure consistency with the API contract.
// Define the schema const eligibilityResponseSchema = { type: 'object', required: ['api_call_id', 'correlation_id', 'consultation', 'outcome'], properties: { api_call_id: { type: 'string', format: 'uuid' }, correlation_id: { type: 'string', format: 'uuid' }, timestamp: { type: 'number' }, consultation: { type: 'string' }, policy: { type: 'string' }, outcome: { type: 'string', enum: ['Complete', 'Pending', 'Failed'] }, limit: { type: 'number' } } }; // Use in the intercept cy.intercept('POST', '/api/hcx/check_eligibility', (req) => { const response = { // ... your mock response }; expect(response).to.matchSchema(eligibilityResponseSchema); req.reply({ statusCode: 200, body: response }); }).as('checkEligibility');🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks
70-70: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
src/components/Facility/ConsultationCard.tsx (2)
172-172: LGTM! Consider adding data-testid attribute.The spelling correction in the button's id is good. Since this is being used for testing, consider adding a
data-testidattribute as well, which is a more maintainable approach for test selectors.<ButtonV2 id="view_consultation_updates" + data-testid="view-consultation-updates-btn" className="h-auto whitespace-pre-wrap border border-secondary-500 bg-white text-black hover:bg-secondary-300"
Line range hint
171-183: Enhance accessibility with ARIA attributes.The button lacks proper accessibility attributes. Consider adding descriptive aria-labels to improve the experience for screen reader users.
<ButtonV2 id="view_consultation_updates" + aria-label="View consultation details and updates" className="h-auto whitespace-pre-wrap border border-secondary-500 bg-white text-black hover:bg-secondary-300" onClick={() => navigate( `/facility/${itemData.facility}/patient/${itemData.patient}/consultation/${itemData.id}`, ) } > View Consultation / Consultation Updates </ButtonV2>
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
cypress/e2e/hcx_spec/HcxClaims.cy.ts(1 hunks)cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientHomepage.cy.ts(0 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Hcx/HcxClaims.ts(1 hunks)cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientConsultation.ts(2 hunks)src/components/Facility/ConsultationCard.tsx(1 hunks)src/components/HCX/PolicyEligibilityCheck.tsx(2 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- cypress/e2e/patient_spec/PatientHomepage.cy.ts
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- cypress/pageobject/Hcx/HcxClaims.ts
- src/components/HCX/PolicyEligibilityCheck.tsx
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Gitleaks
cypress/e2e/hcx_spec/HcxClaims.cy.ts
70-70: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
cypress/pageobject/Patient/PatientConsultation.ts (2)
123-125: Previous review comment about selector specificity is still applicable
The existing review comment about improving selector specificity and method consistency remains valid.
127-132: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Previous review comment about API handling is still applicable with additional concerns
The existing review comment about enhancing API handling remains valid. Additionally:
- The API intercept pattern
/\/api\/hcx\/policy\/\?.*/is too loose and could catch unintended requests - Consider using a more specific pattern like:
clickClaimsButton() {
cy.get("#log-update").scrollIntoView();
- cy.intercept(/\/api\/hcx\/policy\/\?.*/).as("policyStatus");
+ cy.intercept({
+ method: 'GET',
+ pathname: '/api/hcx/policy',
+ query: {
+ consultation: '*' // Add specific query params you expect
+ }
+ }).as("policyStatus");
cy.get("#consultation-buttons").contains("Claims").click();
- cy.wait("@policyStatus").its("response.statusCode").should("eq", 200);
+ cy.wait("@policyStatus", { timeout: 10000 })
+ .then((interception) => {
+ expect(interception.response?.statusCode).to.be.oneOf([200, 201, 204]);
+ // Verify response structure
+ expect(interception.response?.body).to.have.property('policies');
+ });
}cypress/e2e/hcx_spec/HcxClaims.cy.ts (3)
20-29: LGTM! Good test setup practices.
The test setup follows good practices:
- Maintains login state using localStorage
- Properly cleans up filters before each test to prevent interference
94-97: LGTM! Proper test cleanup.
The afterEach hook properly maintains the localStorage state between tests.
57-64: The previous review comment about improving consultation ID extraction is still valid.
Please refer to the previous review comment about adding error handling and type safety to the URL parsing logic.
| clickViewConsultationButton() { | ||
| cy.verifyAndClickElement( | ||
| "#view_consultation_updates", | ||
| "View Consultation / Consultation Updates", | ||
| ); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add wait handling after click action
The click action might trigger page load or state changes. Add appropriate wait handling to improve test reliability.
clickViewConsultationButton() {
cy.verifyAndClickElement(
"#view_consultation_updates",
"View Consultation / Consultation Updates",
);
+ // Wait for the consultation updates to load
+ cy.get('.consultation-updates-container').should('be.visible', { timeout: 10000 });
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| it("Verify the HCX Workflow for a patient with mocked eligibility", () => { | ||
| // Modify the insurance for a facility | ||
| patientPage.visitPatient(hcxPatientName); | ||
| patientConsultationPage.clickPatientDetails(); | ||
| patientPage.clickPatientUpdateDetails(); | ||
| patientInsurance.clickAddInsruanceDetails(); | ||
| patientInsurance.typePatientInsuranceDetail( | ||
| firstInsuranceIdentifier, | ||
| "subscriber_id", | ||
| patientMemberId, | ||
| ); | ||
| patientInsurance.typePatientInsuranceDetail( | ||
| firstInsuranceIdentifier, | ||
| "policy_id", | ||
| patientPolicyId, | ||
| ); | ||
| patientInsurance.selectPatientInsurerName( | ||
| firstInsuranceIdentifier, | ||
| patientInsurerName, | ||
| ); | ||
| cy.submitButton("Save Details"); | ||
| cy.verifyNotification("Patient updated successfully"); | ||
| cy.closeNotification(); | ||
| // Navigate to Consultation View and capture dynamic consultation ID | ||
| let consultationId: string; | ||
| patientConsultationPage.clickViewConsultationButton(); | ||
| cy.url().then((url) => { | ||
| const urlRegex = | ||
| /facility\/([^/]+)\/patient\/([^/]+)\/consultation\/([^/]+)/; | ||
| const match = url.match(urlRegex); | ||
| if (match) { | ||
| consultationId = match[3]; | ||
| } | ||
| }); | ||
| // Intercept and mock the eligibility check response using captured consultationId | ||
| cy.intercept("POST", "/api/hcx/check_eligibility", (req) => { | ||
| req.reply({ | ||
| statusCode: 200, | ||
| body: { | ||
| api_call_id: "bfa228f0-cdfa-4426-bebe-26e996079dbb", | ||
| correlation_id: "86ae030c-1b33-4e52-a6f1-7a74a48111eb", | ||
| timestamp: Date.now(), | ||
| consultation: consultationId, | ||
| policy: patientPolicyId, | ||
| outcome: "Complete", | ||
| limit: 1, | ||
| }, | ||
| }); | ||
| }).as("checkEligibility"); | ||
| // Raise a HCX Pre-auth | ||
| patientConsultationPage.clickManagePatientButton(); | ||
| patientConsultationPage.clickClaimsButton(); | ||
| hcxClaims.selectEligiblePolicy(patientInsurerName); | ||
| hcxClaims.verifyPolicyEligibility(); | ||
| cy.verifyNotification("Checking Policy Eligibility"); | ||
| cy.closeNotification(); | ||
| // Confirm that the eligibility check displays as successful | ||
| cy.wait("@checkEligibility").then((interception) => { | ||
| const response = interception.response.body; | ||
| expect(response.outcome).to.equal("Complete"); | ||
| }); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider breaking down the test into smaller, focused scenarios.
The current test covers multiple aspects of the workflow in a single test. This makes it harder to maintain and debug failures.
Consider splitting into separate test cases:
it('should update patient insurance details')
it('should capture consultation ID from URL')
it('should verify policy eligibility check')🧰 Tools
🪛 Gitleaks
70-70: Detected a Generic API Key, potentially exposing access to various services and sensitive operations.
(generic-api-key)
|
@nihal467 Your efforts have helped advance digital healthcare and TeleICU systems. 🚀 Thank you for taking the time out to make CARE better. We hope you continue to innovate and contribute; your impact is immense! 🙌 |
Proposed Changes
@ohcnetwork/care-fe-code-reviewers
Merge Checklist
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Tests