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.

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

[ISSUE #1190]🧪Add unit test for CMResult #1191

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 17, 2024

Conversation

main-master-hub
Copy link
Contributor

@main-master-hub main-master-hub commented Nov 17, 2024

Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)

Fixes #1190

Brief Description

How Did You Test This Change?

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Introduced a new test module for validating the CMResult enum.
    • Added unit tests for serialization, deserialization, and conversion functionalities.
    • Included tests for error handling with unknown variants.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 17, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes introduce a new test module for the CMResult enum in the rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/body/cm_result.rs file. This module includes unit tests that validate the serialization and deserialization processes, as well as conversions between CMResult and integers. The tests ensure that various functionalities of the CMResult enum are functioning correctly, enhancing the reliability of the implementation.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/body/cm_result.rs Added a new test module for CMResult with unit tests for serialization, deserialization, conversions, and error handling.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Add unit test for CMResult (#1190)

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

approved, auto merge, testing

Suggested reviewers

  • SpaceXCN
  • mxsm

Poem

In the code where rabbits play,
Tests now dance in bright array.
CMResult hops with glee,
Serialization's jubilee!
With each check, our hearts do sing,
Robust code is a wondrous thing! 🐇✨


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.

@rocketmq-rust-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

🚀Thanks for your contribution🎉 @${prCreator}. CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first🔥

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 17, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 16.81%. Comparing base (5644bde) to head (ecd76b1).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1191      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   16.68%   16.81%   +0.13%     
==========================================
  Files         427      427              
  Lines       52836    52860      +24     
==========================================
+ Hits         8815     8888      +73     
+ Misses      44021    43972      -49     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

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: 1

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/body/cm_result.rs (1)

173-177: Enhance error case validation in deserialize_unknown_variant test

The test verifies that an error occurs but doesn't validate the specific error type or message. Consider enhancing it to ensure the correct error variant is returned.

 #[test]
 fn deserialize_unknown_variant() {
-    let result: Result<CMResult, _> = serde_json::from_str("\"UNKNOWN\"");
-    assert!(result.is_err());
+    let result = serde_json::from_str::<CMResult>("\"UNKNOWN\"");
+    match result {
+        Err(err) => {
+            assert!(err.is_data());
+            assert!(err.to_string().contains("unknown variant"));
+        }
+        Ok(_) => panic!("Expected error for unknown variant"),
+    }
 }
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5644bde and ecd76b1.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/body/cm_result.rs (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/body/cm_result.rs (1)

137-142: Test module structure follows Rust best practices

The test module is well-organized with:

  • Proper isolation using #[cfg(test)]
  • Clear imports and module organization
  • Good use of super::* for accessing the tested items

Comment on lines +143 to +178
#[test]
fn serialize_cr_success() {
let result = serde_json::to_string(&CMResult::CRSuccess).unwrap();
assert_eq!(result, "\"CR_SUCCESS\"");
}

#[test]
fn deserialize_cr_success() {
let result: CMResult = serde_json::from_str("\"CR_SUCCESS\"").unwrap();
assert_eq!(result, CMResult::CRSuccess);
}

#[test]
fn from_i32_to_cmresult() {
let result = CMResult::from(0);
assert_eq!(result, CMResult::CRSuccess);
}

#[test]
fn from_cmresult_to_i32() {
let result: i32 = CMResult::CRSuccess.into();
assert_eq!(result, 0);
}

#[test]
fn display_cr_success() {
let result = format!("{}", CMResult::CRSuccess);
assert_eq!(result, "CR_SUCCESS");
}

#[test]
fn deserialize_unknown_variant() {
let result: Result<CMResult, _> = serde_json::from_str("\"UNKNOWN\"");
assert!(result.is_err());
}
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Enhance test coverage for all CMResult variants

While the current tests are well-structured, they only cover the CRSuccess variant. Consider adding tests for:

  1. All other variants (CRLater, CRRollback, CRCommit, CRThrowException, CRReturnNull)
  2. Edge cases in From conversion (e.g., negative numbers, values > 5)
  3. Serialization/deserialization of all variants

Would you like me to provide additional test cases to cover these scenarios?

@mxsm mxsm merged commit 39b03d4 into mxsm:main Nov 17, 2024
19 of 24 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
AI review first Ai review pr first ready to review waiting-review waiting review this PR
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Unit Test🧪] Add unit test for CMResult
4 participants