Skip to content
New issue

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

Sign up for GitHub

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

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Improve test coverage #22

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 15, 2024
Merged

Improve test coverage #22

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 15, 2024
+120 −13

Conversation

zzaakiirr
Copy link
Collaborator

@zzaakiirr zzaakiirr commented Jul 15, 2024 •
edited by coderabbitai bot
Loading

What does this PR do?

This PR improves test coverage by adding and modifying existing tests

Results

Before After
90.52% 96.12%

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Introduced new test suites for the UberTask class, covering methods like report, .retry, run, and .skip.
    • Added tests to ensure accurate behaviors for task execution, retries, success, failure, and skipping tasks with or without blocks.

@coderabbitai coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jul 15, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Walkthrough

The latest updates introduce test suites for the UberTask class, targeting the report, .retry, .run, and .skip methods. These changes ensure robust testing for various functionalities such as task execution, retry mechanisms, success and failure handling, and task skipping behavior with and without blocks. These enhancements focus on expanding the test coverage without altering the public interface of the UberTask class.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
spec/.../uber_task/report_spec.rb Introduced a test suite for the report method in the UberTask class.
spec/.../uber_task/retry_spec.rb Added tests for the .retry method, covering different configurations like with a block, without a block, and with a wait parameter.
spec/.../uber_task/run_spec.rb Updated tests for the run method, including new contexts for handling task success and failure.
spec/.../uber_task/skip_spec.rb Enhanced tests for the .skip method, checking behaviors with and without a block, and validating task_skipped state management.

Poem

In the realm of code so bright,
Tasks now skip with blocks in sight,
Running smooth, both fail and win,
Retry persists, report begins.
Testing paths so clear and right,
UberTask shines in the coder's night. 🌙

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>.
    • 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 generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @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 as 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.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

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.

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot reviewed Jul 15, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@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

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1cc5070 and 13a8123.

Files selected for processing (4)
  • spec/non_rails/uber_task/report_spec.rb (1 hunks)
  • spec/non_rails/uber_task/retry_spec.rb (1 hunks)
  • spec/non_rails/uber_task/run_spec.rb (1 hunks)
  • spec/non_rails/uber_task/skip_spec.rb (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (10)
spec/non_rails/uber_task/report_spec.rb (1)

1-23: LGTM!

The test case for the report method is well-written and covers the expected behavior.

spec/non_rails/uber_task/run_spec.rb (2)

5-17: LGTM!

The test case for the run method when the task succeeds is well-written and covers the expected behavior.

19-32: LGTM!

The test case for the run method when the task fails is well-written and covers the expected behavior.

spec/non_rails/uber_task/skip_spec.rb (3)

5-23: LGTM!

The shared examples for skipping the task are well-written and cover the expected behavior.

25-28: LGTM!

The test case for the skip method with a block is well-written and covers the expected behavior.

31-34: LGTM!

The test case for the skip method without a block is well-written and covers the expected behavior.

spec/non_rails/uber_task/retry_spec.rb (4)

5-24: LGTM!

The shared examples for retrying the task are well-written and cover the expected behavior.

26-29: LGTM!

The test case for the retry method with a block is well-written and covers the expected behavior.

31-35: LGTM!

The test case for the retry method without a block is well-written and covers the expected behavior.

38-41: LGTM!

The test case for the retry method with a wait parameter is well-written and covers the expected behavior.

@zzaakiirr zzaakiirr requested a review from borela July 15, 2024 13:45
@borela borela merged commit 92572fe into main Jul 15, 2024
2 checks passed
@borela borela deleted the improve-test-coverage branch July 15, 2024 18:48
@borela borela mentioned this pull request Jul 15, 2024
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@coderabbitai coderabbitai[bot] coderabbitai[bot] left review comments

@borela borela borela approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@zzaakiirr @borela