Reach 100% STMT+MC/DC coverage #51
Conversation
…lementation under Ieee1788.Implementation
torsknod2
added
auto-squash
|
Your organization has reached the subscribed usage limit. You can upgrade your account by purchasing a subscription at Stripe payment link This comment was generated by AI. Information provided may be incorrect. Current plan usage: 100% Have feedback or need help? |
📝 WalkthroughSummary by CodeRabbit
WalkthroughThe changes update the configuration and code structure for an Ada library supporting IEEE 1788 interval arithmetic. A new VS Code setting is introduced to enable connecting the SARIF viewer to GitHub code scanning. The Ada implementation is restructured with a dedicated implementation package, including added functions and improved formatting for clarity, while the older interface file sees the removal of numerous types and operations. Additionally, the test infrastructure is updated with extensive package renaming and namespace qualification to align with the new structure and naming conventions. Changes
Suggested labels
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yaml 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (6)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
🪧 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
Documentation and Community
|
|
View changes in DiffLens |
IEEE 1788 Interval Arithmetic Library Refactoring ReviewSummaryThis pull request implements a significant refactoring of the package structure for the IEEE 1788 Interval Arithmetic library in Ada. The main changes include:
These changes improve the overall organization of the codebase, enhancing maintainability and extensibility. Detailed AnalysisModularityThe refactoring significantly improves modularity:
Naming ConventionsThe changes enhance naming conventions:
VersioningWhile the refactoring improves organization, versioning aspects were not addressed:
Testing CoverageThe package restructuring may impact testing:
SQL Performance and EfficiencyNot applicable to this Ada code refactoring. ConclusionThis refactoring enhances the project's structure while maintaining its functionality, setting a solid foundation for future development and testing of the IEEE 1788 Interval Arithmetic library in Ada. The changes are consistent across all affected files, showing a thorough approach to the restructuring. |
torsknod2
added
enhancement
torsknod2
changed the title
|
View changes in DiffLens |
coderabbitai
bot
added
documentation
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 6
🛑 Comments failed to post (6)
src/ieee1788-implementation.ads (1)
52-52:
⚠️ Potential issueRemove the extra space
That sneaky space won't pass the pipeline’s strict style guidelines. Let’s show it the door.- type T is delta <> ; + type T is delta <>;📝 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.type T is delta <>;🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: CI/ CD
[error] 52-52: Compilation failed due to style issue: space not allowed [-gnatyt]
tests/src/ieee1788-tests-suites-generic_suite.ads (1)
40-40:
⚠️ Potential issueStyle error: remove extra space
We must fix this space issue or face pipeline meltdown.- type G is delta <> ; + type G is delta <>;📝 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.type G is delta <>;🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: CI/ CD
[warning] 40-40: space not allowed [-gnatyt]
tests/src/ieee1788-tests-to_interval_test.ads (1)
40-41:
⚠️ Potential issueAh, the classic "space where no space should be" error!
The pipeline is complaining about the space before the semicolon in the generic type parameter declaration. Let's fix that to make the style checker happy.
- type G is delta <> ; + type G is delta <>;📝 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.type G is delta <>; package Ieee1788.Tests.To_Interval_Test is🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: CI/ CD
[warning] 40-40: space not allowed [-gnatyt]
src/ieee1788-implementation.adb (2)
341-345:
⚠️ Potential issueFix style issues in array declarations.
The pipeline is complaining about missing spaces in array declarations. Ada style guide wants you to be extra spacious 🚀
Apply this diff to fix the style issues:
- constant array (Sign, Sign) - of access function (Left, Right : Interval) return Interval := - [[MulNN'Access, MulNM'Access, MulNP'Access], - [MulMN'Access, MulMM'Access, MulMP'Access], - [MulPN'Access, MulPM'Access, MulPP'Access]]; + constant array (Sign, Sign) of + access function (Left, Right : Interval) return Interval := + [ [MulNN'Access, MulNM'Access, MulNP'Access], + [MulMN'Access, MulMM'Access, MulMP'Access], + [MulPN'Access, MulPM'Access, MulPP'Access] ];And similarly for the division table:
- constant array (Sign, Sign) - of access function (Left, Right : Interval) return Interval := - [[DivNN'Access, DivNM'Access, DivNP'Access], - [DivMN'Access, DivMM'Access, DivMP'Access], - [DivPN'Access, DivPM'Access, DivPP'Access]]; + constant array (Sign, Sign) of + access function (Left, Right : Interval) return Interval := + [ [DivNN'Access, DivNM'Access, DivNP'Access], + [DivMN'Access, DivMM'Access, DivMP'Access], + [DivPN'Access, DivPM'Access, DivPP'Access] ];Also applies to: 437-441
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Actions: CI/ CD
[error] 343-343: Compilation failed due to style issue: space required [-gnatyt]
446-446: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Address the FIXME comment.
There's a FIXME comment referencing a paper about IEEE 1788 implementation. Consider creating a follow-up issue to track this.
Would you like me to create an issue to track the implementation of the algorithm described in the referenced paper?
.vscode/settings.json (1)
117-118: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
⚠️ Potential issueRemove Trailing Comma for Valid JSON Syntax
The new setting
"sarif-viewer.connectToGithubCodeScanning": "on",has been introduced, but the trailing comma before the closing brace is causing a syntax error according to the static analysis. In strict JSON the trailing comma isn’t allowed, which might lead to issues with some parsers—even if VS Code settings sometimes tolerate JSONC.Please remove the trailing comma to ensure full JSON compatibility.
- "sarif-viewer.connectToGithubCodeScanning": "on", + "sarif-viewer.connectToGithubCodeScanning": "on"📝 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."sarif-viewer.connectToGithubCodeScanning": "on" }🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 117-118: Expected a property but instead found '}'.
Expected a property here.
(parse)
…overage and some improvements to pre-commit checks and linting
|
View changes in DiffLens |
Code Review: Project Restructuring and Test Suite ReorganizationOverviewThis pull request implements a significant restructuring of the project's package hierarchy and test suite organization. The changes aim to improve the overall project structure, enhance maintainability, and set the foundation for achieving 100% source level test coverage. Key Changes
Detailed AnalysisNaming Conventions
Modularity
Documentation and Descriptions
Grouping and Folder Structure
Test Performance and Efficiency
ConclusionThe changes in this pull request significantly improve the project's structure, test organization, and overall maintainability. The new package hierarchy and modular test suite provide a solid foundation for future development and easier maintenance. The enhanced naming conventions and folder structure align well with Ada and DBT best practices, while the improved test cases set the stage for achieving comprehensive test coverage. |
coderabbitai
bot
added
the
dependencies
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 13
🔭 Outside diff range comments (3)
hooks/version_check.py (1)
177-182: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)Duplicate version comparison error logging
The same version comparison error is logged twice - here and again in the file processing loop. Consider consolidating these checks.
-if BASE_VERSION and version <= BASE_VERSION: - logging.error( - "The version %s we will propose will not be greater than the base version %s", - version, - BASE_VERSION, - )README.md (1)
87-87: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)TODO Note on Coverage Reports
The TODO regarding coverage report description is noted. While it’s understandable to leave placeholders during a heavy refactor, make sure these are addressed soon—otherwise, future you might be wondering what exactly “XCOV+” means.src/ieee1788-implementation.adb (1)
225-230:⚠️ Potential issueSubtraction Operator Bug
The subtraction function is intended to compute the interval difference as
[Left.Lower_Bound – Right.Upper_Bound, Left.Upper_Bound – Right.Lower_Bound].
However, the upper bound is computed asLeft.Upper_Bound + Right.Lower_Bound(line 229), which is incorrect. Please amend this to subtract instead of add:- Upper_Bound => Left.Upper_Bound + Right.Lower_Bound); + Upper_Bound => Left.Upper_Bound - Right.Lower_Bound);This is a critical arithmetic error in the interval subtraction logic.
🛑 Comments failed to post (13)
src/ieee1788-implementation.ads (2)
199-207: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Ensure division exception coverage is tested.
TheInvalid_Arguments_To_Divisionexception is raised if the right-hand side interval includes zero. To hit 100% coverage, please confirm that your tests include intervals crossing zero on the divisor side.Would you like a shell script or additional test scaffolding to confirm the presence of these corner tests?
232-245: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Comprehensive sign-handling but watch out for edge conditions.
YourSgnfunction’s postconditions look thorough. A gentle reminder: for 100% statement and MC/DC coverage, ensure that all three sign branches (-1, 0, +1) are tested, especially boundary values forTthat might be near zero.tests/src/ieee1788-tests-suites-generic_suite.adb (1)
37-41: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Conversion to a fully qualified reference is neat.
Usingwith Ieee1788.Tests.To_Interval_Test;and instantiatingTo_Interval_Test_Instancewith full qualification leaves fewer chances for naming collisions and confusion. A small but meaningful improvement!tests/src/ieee1788-tests-to_interval_test.adb (6)
46-83: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Missing negative test cases for invalid inputs
The test suite only covers valid inputs. Consider adding test cases for:
- Invalid range (where first > last)
- NaN/Infinity values (if supported by type G)
- Edge cases around type boundaries
Would you like me to generate additional test cases for these scenarios?
65-72: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Hardcoded zero value might not work for all floating point types
The test assumes "0.0" will work for all generic type instantiations. Consider using
G'Value("0.0")orG'Zerofor better type compatibility.- (Ieee1788_Instance.To_String (Ieee1788_Instance.To_Interval (0.0)) = + (Ieee1788_Instance.To_String (Ieee1788_Instance.To_Interval (G'Value("0.0"))) =📝 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.procedure Test_Zero (T : in out Test_Suite) is pragma Unreferenced (T); begin AUnit.Assertions.Assert (Ieee1788_Instance.To_String (Ieee1788_Instance.To_Interval (G'Value("0.0"))) = "[0.0,0.0]", "Test Zero value"); end Test_Zero;
65-72: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Zero test could use more rigor.
Testing 0.0 is a good start, but for thorough MC/DC coverage, consider:
- Testing -0.0 (signed zero)
- Verifying that -0.0 and +0.0 produce identical intervals
- Testing values very close to zero (epsilon neighborhood)
procedure Test_Zero (T : in out Test_Suite) is pragma Unreferenced (T); + Plus_Zero : constant Ieee1788_Instance.Interval_Type := + Ieee1788_Instance.To_Interval (0.0); + Minus_Zero : constant Ieee1788_Instance.Interval_Type := + Ieee1788_Instance.To_Interval (-0.0); begin AUnit.Assertions.Assert - (Ieee1788_Instance.To_String (Ieee1788_Instance.To_Interval (0.0)) = + (Ieee1788_Instance.To_String (Plus_Zero) = "[0.0,0.0]", "Test Zero value"); + AUnit.Assertions.Assert + (Ieee1788_Instance.To_String (Minus_Zero) = + "[0.0,0.0]", + "Test Negative Zero value"); + AUnit.Assertions.Assert + (Plus_Zero = Minus_Zero, + "Positive and negative zero should yield identical intervals"); end Test_Zero;📝 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.procedure Test_Zero (T : in out Test_Suite) is pragma Unreferenced (T); Plus_Zero : constant Ieee1788_Instance.Interval_Type := Ieee1788_Instance.To_Interval (0.0); Minus_Zero : constant Ieee1788_Instance.Interval_Type := Ieee1788_Instance.To_Interval (-0.0); begin AUnit.Assertions.Assert (Ieee1788_Instance.To_String (Plus_Zero) = "[0.0,0.0]", "Test Zero value"); AUnit.Assertions.Assert (Ieee1788_Instance.To_String (Minus_Zero) = "[0.0,0.0]", "Test Negative Zero value"); AUnit.Assertions.Assert (Plus_Zero = Minus_Zero, "Positive and negative zero should yield identical intervals"); end Test_Zero;
84-99: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider parameterizing test cases for better coverage.
The current suite uses fixed test cases. Consider using test case generators or parameterized tests to:
- Test multiple delta types
- Cover more boundary values
- Test with different precision requirements
74-82: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Range test needs invalid input handling.
The current test only verifies a valid range. For MC/DC coverage, you should also test:
- Invalid ranges where min > max
- Ranges with identical endpoints
- Ranges containing special values (NaN, Inf)
procedure Test_Range (T : in out Test_Suite) is pragma Unreferenced (T); begin AUnit.Assertions.Assert (Ieee1788_Instance.To_String (Ieee1788_Instance.To_Interval (G'First, G'Last)) = "[" & G'Image (G'First) & "," & G'Image (G'Last) & "]", "Test Range value"); + -- Test invalid range (min > max) + begin + declare + Invalid : constant Ieee1788_Instance.Interval_Type := + Ieee1788_Instance.To_Interval (G'Last, G'First); + begin + AUnit.Assertions.Assert (False, + "Invalid range should raise exception"); + exception + when Ieee1788_Instance.Invalid_Argument => + null; -- Expected + end; + end; end Test_Range;📝 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.procedure Test_Range (T : in out Test_Suite) is pragma Unreferenced (T); begin AUnit.Assertions.Assert (Ieee1788_Instance.To_String (Ieee1788_Instance.To_Interval (G'First, G'Last)) = "[" & G'Image (G'First) & "," & G'Image (G'Last) & "]", "Test Range value"); -- Test invalid range (min > max) begin declare Invalid : constant Ieee1788_Instance.Interval_Type := Ieee1788_Instance.To_Interval (G'Last, G'First); begin AUnit.Assertions.Assert (False, "Invalid range should raise exception"); exception when Ieee1788_Instance.Invalid_Argument => null; -- Expected end; end; end Test_Range;
46-54: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Add boundary value assertions for First value.
While testing G'First is good, you might want to also assert:
- The interval is properly bounded (not empty)
- The interval width is zero
- The interval contains exactly one point
procedure Test_First (T : in out Test_Suite) is pragma Unreferenced (T); + First_Interval : constant Ieee1788_Instance.Interval_Type := + Ieee1788_Instance.To_Interval (G'First); begin AUnit.Assertions.Assert - (Ieee1788_Instance.To_String - (Ieee1788_Instance.To_Interval (G'First)) = + (Ieee1788_Instance.To_String (First_Interval) = "[" & G'Image (G'First) & "," & G'Image (G'First) & "]", "Test First value"); + AUnit.Assertions.Assert + (not Ieee1788_Instance.Is_Empty (First_Interval), + "First interval should not be empty"); + AUnit.Assertions.Assert + (Ieee1788_Instance.Width (First_Interval) = 0.0, + "First interval should have zero width"); end Test_First;📝 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.procedure Test_First (T : in out Test_Suite) is pragma Unreferenced (T); First_Interval : constant Ieee1788_Instance.Interval_Type := Ieee1788_Instance.To_Interval (G'First); begin AUnit.Assertions.Assert (Ieee1788_Instance.To_String (First_Interval) = "[" & G'Image (G'First) & "," & G'Image (G'First) & "]", "Test First value"); AUnit.Assertions.Assert (not Ieee1788_Instance.Is_Empty (First_Interval), "First interval should not be empty"); AUnit.Assertions.Assert (Ieee1788_Instance.Width (First_Interval) = 0.0, "First interval should have zero width"); end Test_First;hooks/version_check.py (1)
190-190: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Replace assert with proper type checking
Using
assertfor runtime type checking is discouraged as assertions can be disabled with Python's -O flag.- assert isinstance(data["version"], str) + if not isinstance(data["version"], str): + raise TypeError(f"Version must be a string, got {type(data['version'])}")📝 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.if not isinstance(data["version"], str): raise TypeError(f"Version must be a string, got {type(data['version'])}")🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)
190-190: Use of
assertdetected(S101)
.pre-commit-config.yaml (2)
71-73: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Forbid-Tabs Hook Adjustment
Theforbid-tabshook now excludes.vscode/files, which is sensible if those files are managed by an IDE. The configuration is clear, but note that static analysis warns about comment indentation. Consider verifying if you want those commented-out hooks to follow your YAML style guidelines or leave them be.🧰 Tools
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
[warning] 73-73: comment not indented like content
(comments-indentation)
107-111:
⚠️ Potential issuePylint Hook Indentation Issue
Static analysis flagged a wrong indentation at thepylinthook declaration. The hook element under thepylint-dev/pylintrepository is indented incorrectly—YAMLlint expects 4 spaces here. Please adjust the indentation to avoid YAML syntax errors. For example:- hooks: - - id: pylint - additional_dependencies: ['semver', 'tomlkit'] + hooks: + - id: pylint + additional_dependencies: ['semver', 'tomlkit']📝 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.rev: v3.3.4 hooks: - id: pylint additional_dependencies: ['semver', 'tomlkit']🧰 Tools
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
[error] 109-109: wrong indentation: expected 4 but found 2
(indentation)
tests/src/ieee1788-tests-to_interval_test.ads (1)
47-52: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding more edge cases for MC/DC coverage.
While the basic test cases (First, Last, Zero, Range) are good, consider adding tests for:
- NaN handling
- Infinity handling
- Denormalized numbers
- Invalid range combinations (e.g., max < min)
These edge cases are crucial for achieving 100% MC/DC coverage.
Would you like me to generate additional test case declarations to cover these scenarios?
|
View changes in DiffLens |
IEEE 1788 Ada Implementation Refactoring ReviewThis PR represents a significant refactoring of the package structure for the IEEE 1788 Ada implementation. The changes improve the project's structure, testability, and maintainability. Here's a detailed analysis of the changes: Package Structure and Naming Conventions
Modularity Improvements
Test Suite Restructuring
Build and CI Process Updates
Versioning Considerations
Documentation and Descriptions
Grouping and Folder Structure
These changes collectively enhance the project's maintainability and set a solid foundation for future development and expansion of the IEEE 1788 Ada implementation. |
|
View changes in DiffLens |
IEEE1788 Ada Implementation Refactoring ReviewOverviewThis pull request refactors the package structure of the IEEE1788 Ada implementation, improving organization and test coverage. The changes enhance modularity, maintainability, and set the stage for easier addition of new features and tests in the future. Key Changes
Detailed AnalysisModularity
Naming Conventions
Package Structure
Documentation and Descriptions
Versioning
ConclusionThe refactoring significantly improves the overall structure and organization of the IEEE1788 Ada implementation. It enhances modularity, maintainability, and testability while setting a solid foundation for future development. The changes are well-aligned with best practices in software engineering and should contribute to a more robust and flexible codebase. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🛑 Comments failed to post (3)
.github/workflows/cicd.yaml (2)
78-79: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Configure SKIP environment variable for pre-commit hooks
The addition of the
SKIPenvironment variable with the value"gnatpp-implementation,gnatpp-tests,unit-tests"clearly instructs the pre-commit action to bypass these specific hooks. Just make sure that skipping these does not leave any critical static or unit checks undone—especially since one of the PR objectives is to nail 100% STMT+MC/DC coverage.
81-82: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Improved extra_args in pre-commit action
Appending
--all-files --show-diff-on-failureto theextra_argsparameter is a welcome enhancement. It ensures that every file is checked and that any failure will show a diff, which aids in debugging and maintains transparency in the CI pipeline.tests/src/ieee1788-tests-to_interval_test.ads (1)
40-42: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider using a more descriptive generic parameter name.
While
Gworks, a more descriptive name likeFixed_TypeorNumber_Typewould better convey its purpose in the context of interval arithmetic testing.- type G is delta <>; + type Fixed_Type is delta <>;📝 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.generic type Fixed_Type is delta <>; package Ieee1788.Tests.To_Interval_Test is
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅ 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
|
View changes in DiffLens |
IEEE 1788 Interval Arithmetic Library Refactoring ReviewOverviewThis pull request implements a significant refactoring of the package structure for the IEEE 1788 Interval Arithmetic library and its tests. The changes aim to improve the overall structure of the project, making it more maintainable and easier to extend with additional tests and functionality. Key Changes
Detailed AnalysisNaming Conventions
Modularity
Documentation and Descriptions
Grouping and Folder Structure
Performance and Efficiency
ConclusionThe changes in this PR significantly improve the project's structure, setting a foundation for better maintainability and easier extension of functionality. The refactoring also supports the goal of achieving 100% source level test coverage, as mentioned in one of the commit messages. |
|
View changes in DiffLens |
No description provided.