Feat: add integration test for the stakeholder

[GuningShen]

Description

comment: # I mock some data following the new v2/stakeholder/[stakeholderid] api for the cypress integration test.

Fixes #1769

Type of change

• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

Screenshots

Before	After
"screenshot before"

How Has This Been Tested?

• Cypress integration

Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

[dadiorchen]

The organization mock json is deprecated, please create a new fixture (under fixture folder) json file for stakeholder , the spec of stakeholder is defined in our query api doc here:
https://github.com/Greenstand/treetracker-query-api/blob/fa194cb4a274ee688c2b26b58596147368d08b9e/docs/api/spec/query-api.yaml#L1542-L1559

[dadiorchen]

@GuningShen your pull request looks pretty good, I added some comment:

1. The mock data above
2. Please fix the failure unit test, you can check the log by clicking the details

[GuningShen]

Hi, @dadiorchen thanks for commenting. I am quite confused looking at the stakeholder schema. It seems the new version does not contain fields like created_at, org_name, etc and I cannot figure out how to render the organization page without mocking those variables.

[dadiorchen]

@GuningShen sorry for the inconvenience, the final definition of stakeholder is here:

                          Table "stakeholder.stakeholder"
   Column   |           Type           | Collation | Nullable |      Default
------------+--------------------------+-----------+----------+--------------------
 id         | uuid                     |           | not null | uuid_generate_v4()
 type       | character varying        |           | not null |
 org_name   | character varying        |           |          |
 first_name | character varying        |           |          |
 last_name  | character varying        |           |          |
 email      | character varying        |           |          |
 phone      | character varying        |           |          |
 website    | character varying        |           |          |
 logo_url   | character varying        |           |          |
 map        | character varying        |           |          |
 created_at | timestamp with time zone |           | not null | now()
 updated_at | timestamp with time zone |           | not null | now()
 active     | boolean                  |           | not null | true
 entity_id  | integer                  |           |          |

The yaml file is out of date, so please mock the stakeholder based on this db structure.

[dadiorchen]

Aslo it would be great if you can raise a pr to update our yaml file in query API.

[GuningShen]

Aslo it would be great if you can raise a pr to update our yaml file in query API.

I just submitted a pr in query API! Please check that out. Thanks.

[yunchipang]

overall lgtm! organization & stakeholder integration tests passed.
feel free to merge it after resolving the conflicts 🚀

[yunchipang]

nit: I'd rename this fixture to be planter.json (I assume he's a planter)

[yunchipang]

nit: I would use

path: `/query/v2/stakeholder/${stakeholder.id}`,

instead of

path: '/query/v2/stakeholder/1',

to populate the stakeholder id in path dynamically. And this should apply to all other paths in this test file if you are modifying any of them.

[GuningShen]

Hi @yunchipang , thanks for your suggestion! I've just changed it. I agree it will make my code look cleaner.

[dadiorchen]

@GuningShen sorry for the late review, could solve these conflict? we want to merge your pr

[GuningShen]

@GuningShen sorry for the late review, could solve these conflict? we want to merge your pr

Hi @dadiorchen , I just resolved all the merge conflicts. Could you check whether my code looks good to you?