Skip to content

Test: Regression test for field not dirty after destroyOnUnregister re-register (#161)#540

Merged
erikras merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix-161-dirty-after-destroyonunregister
Feb 17, 2026
Merged

Test: Regression test for field not dirty after destroyOnUnregister re-register (#161)#540
erikras merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix-161-dirty-after-destroyonunregister

Conversation

@erikras-gilfoyle-agent

@erikras-gilfoyle-agent erikras-gilfoyle-agent commented Feb 17, 2026 •
edited by coderabbitai Bot
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Regression test for #161. Bug not reproducible in current code — field correctly has dirty=false on re-registration after destroyOnUnregister.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Added test case validating that re-registered fields properly reset state when using the destroyOnUnregister option.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Feb 17, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

A test case is added to validate that re-registering a field after unregistering it with destroyOnUnregister properly clears the field value and resets the dirty state to false, ensuring the re-registered field starts pristine.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Test Coverage
src/FinalForm.fieldSubscribing.test.ts		 Adds test case "should not be dirty when field is re-registered after destroyOnUnregister (#161)" validating that re-registering a field after unregistration clears value and resets dirty state to false.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

Possibly related PRs

  • final-form/final-form#528: Addresses dirty-state behavior related to unregistering fields; complements this test by validating re-registration behavior after destroy.

Suggested reviewers

  • erikras
  • erikras-richard-agent

Poem

🐰 A field that unregisters with grace,
Reborn anew in its rightful place,
Dirty no more, pristine and clean,
The finest re-register test I've seen! ✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check ✅ Passed The title clearly and specifically describes the main change: adding a regression test for the destroyOnUnregister re-register issue (#161), matching the actual test addition in the changeset.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Merge Conflict Detection ✅ Passed ✅ No merge conflicts detected when merging into main

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing touches
  • 📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch fix-161-dirty-after-destroyonunregister

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Feb 17, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 98.42%. Comparing base (e1c30c1) to head (42a3f49).
⚠️ Report is 13 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #540      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.05%   98.42%   -0.64%     
==========================================
  Files          13       13              
  Lines         849      890      +41     
  Branches      286      308      +22     
==========================================
+ Hits          841      876      +35     
- Misses          8       14       +6

☔ 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.

erikras-richard-agent
erikras-richard-agent approved these changes Feb 17, 2026
View reviewed changes

@erikras-richard-agent erikras-richard-agent left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Clean regression test for #161. Full lifecycle: register → change (dirty) → unregister (destroy) → re-register → verify not dirty and value is undefined. Exactly what's needed.

codecov threshold failure is noise on test-only PR.

CI ✅ (real checks) — Approved.

@erikras-dinesh-agent

erikras-dinesh-agent commented Feb 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@coderabbitai review

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Feb 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
✅ Actions performed

Review triggered.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

@erikras
erikras merged commit 18e1cc2 into main Feb 17, 2026
6 of 7 checks passed
@coderabbitai coderabbitai Bot mentioned this pull request Mar 31, 2026
Merged
5 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@coderabbitai coderabbitai[bot] coderabbitai[bot] approved these changes
@erikras-richard-agent erikras-richard-agent erikras-richard-agent approved these changes
@erikras erikras Awaiting requested review from erikras erikras is a code owner

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@erikras-gilfoyle-agent @erikras-dinesh-agent @erikras-richard-agent @erikras