Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

[ISSUE #1121]🧪Add test case for AccessChannel #1122

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 9, 2024

Conversation

master-main-hub
Copy link
Contributor

@master-main-hub master-main-hub commented Nov 9, 2024

Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)

Fixes #1121

Brief Description

How Did You Test This Change?

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Introduced a new test module for validating serialization and deserialization of the AccessChannel enum.
    • Added tests for both AccessChannel::Local and AccessChannel::Cloud variants, ensuring accurate JSON conversion and error handling for unknown variants.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 9, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces a new test module for the AccessChannel enum within the rocketmq-client/src/base/access_channel.rs file. It includes unit tests that validate both serialization and deserialization processes using the serde_json library. The tests ensure that the enum variants serialize and deserialize correctly, including handling of unknown variants.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
rocketmq-client/src/base/access_channel.rs Added a new test module with unit tests for AccessChannel enum serialization and deserialization.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Add test case for AccessChannel (#1121)

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

approved, auto merge, testing

🐇 In the meadow, I hop and play,
With tests for channels, bright as day.
Serialization, deserialization too,
Ensuring our code is tried and true.
So let’s celebrate, with a joyful cheer,
For AccessChannel tests, we hold so dear! 🌼


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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@github-actions github-actions bot requested review from mxsm and SpaceXCN November 9, 2024 05:57
@mxsm
Copy link
Owner

mxsm commented Nov 9, 2024

🚀Thanks for your contribution🎉. CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first🔥

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
rocketmq-client/src/base/access_channel.rs (1)

64-97: LGTM! Well-structured test cases with good coverage.

The tests effectively verify both serialization and deserialization, including error handling for unknown variants.

Consider adding these additional test cases for more comprehensive coverage:

#[test]
fn test_default_is_local() {
    assert_eq!(AccessChannel::default(), AccessChannel::Local);
}

#[test]
fn deserialize_malformed_json() {
    let json = r#"{"invalid": "json"}"#;
    let result: Result<AccessChannel, _> = serde_json::from_str(json);
    assert!(result.is_err());
}

#[test]
fn deserialize_verify_error_message() {
    let json = r#""UNKNOWN""#;
    let error = serde_json::from_str::<AccessChannel>(json).unwrap_err();
    assert_eq!(
        error.to_string(),
        "unknown AccessChannel variant"
    );
}
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 93c21c6 and aecf217.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • rocketmq-client/src/base/access_channel.rs (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
rocketmq-client/src/base/access_channel.rs (2)

58-62: LGTM! Test module setup follows best practices.

The test module is properly configured with appropriate imports and structure.


58-98: Verify test coverage for AccessChannel implementation.

The test implementation successfully meets the PR objectives and follows best practices.

Let's verify the test coverage:

✅ Verification successful

Let me gather more information about the AccessChannel implementation to verify the test coverage properly.


Let me fix the path and gather complete implementation details.


Test coverage for AccessChannel is comprehensive and accurate

The implementation has complete test coverage for all its functionality:

  • Tests cover both variants (Local and Cloud) of the enum
  • Serialization and deserialization implementations are fully tested
  • Error handling for unknown variants is verified
  • The enum derives all necessary traits (Debug, Copy, Clone, PartialEq, Eq, Default)
  • The only usage outside tests is the default configuration in client_config.rs, which aligns with the tested behavior
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify test coverage for AccessChannel

# Test 1: Check if we have tests for all public methods/traits
echo "Checking public interface coverage..."
ast-grep --pattern 'impl $trait for AccessChannel' 

# Test 2: Verify no other test files exist for AccessChannel to avoid split coverage
echo "Checking for additional test files..."
fd -g "*access_channel*test*.rs"

Length of output: 257


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the complete AccessChannel implementation
echo "Checking AccessChannel implementation..."
rg -A 10 "enum AccessChannel" 

# Check for any derive attributes
echo "Checking derive attributes..."
rg "#\[derive" -A 2 "access_channel.rs"

# Check for any custom implementations
echo "Checking custom implementations..."
rg "impl.*AccessChannel" -A 5 "access_channel.rs"

Length of output: 1157


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the complete implementation with correct path
echo "Checking complete AccessChannel implementation..."
cat rocketmq-client/src/base/access_channel.rs

# Check for any usages of AccessChannel in the codebase
echo "Checking AccessChannel usages..."
rg "AccessChannel::" --type rust -A 2

Length of output: 5510

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
approved PR has approved auto merge
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Unit Test🧪] Add test case for AccessChannel
2 participants