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

fix: bring back compute coverage options #22

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Dec 6, 2024
Merged

Conversation

djm07073
Copy link
Contributor

@djm07073 djm07073 commented Dec 3, 2024

Fix

  • Bring back compute coverage options

Test

  • Add test with options case

Summary by CodeRabbit

Release Notes

  • New Features

    • Introduced a computeCoverage option in the testing configuration, allowing users to specify whether to compute coverage during tests.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Enhanced the flexibility of the testing functionality to utilize user-specified options for coverage computation.
  • Documentation

    • Updated README.md to reflect the new computeCoverage property in the TestOptions interface.
  • Chores

    • Modified the .gitignore to exclude generated files from version control.
    • Updated the testing workflow to include an additional step for executing specific tests.
    • Added a new test script to facilitate direct testing of specific files.

@djm07073 djm07073 requested a review from a team as a code owner December 3, 2024 03:36
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 6, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request include modifications to the testing workflow, updates to the .gitignore file, and enhancements to the README.md, package.json, and type definitions. A new boolean property, computeCoverage, was added to the TestOptions interface in both README.md and src/types/options.ts. The test method in src/builder.ts was updated to utilize this new option. Additionally, the test suite in test/test.spec.ts was adjusted to include new test cases reflecting these changes.

Changes

File Change Summary
.github/workflows/test.yml Added a command to run tests with a specific test specification file after the general test command.
.gitignore Added entries to exclude .trace and .coverage_map.mvcov files from version control.
README.md Added a new boolean property, computeCoverage, to the TestOptions interface.
package.json Modified the test script to ignore the test.spec.ts file during execution and added a new test-test script.
src/builder.ts Updated compute_coverage handling in the test method to use the value from the options parameter.
src/types/options.ts Added a new optional property, computeCoverage, to the TestOptions interface.
test/test.spec.ts Removed a test case and added two new test cases to verify functionality with and without coverage options.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant CI
    participant Builder
    participant TestOptions

    User->>CI: Trigger workflow
    CI->>Builder: Run tests
    Builder->>TestOptions: Check computeCoverage
    alt computeCoverage is true
        Builder->>TestOptions: Collect coverage data
    else computeCoverage is false
        Builder->>TestOptions: Skip coverage data
    end
    CI->>User: Return test results
Loading

🐰 "In the meadow, tests now run,
With coverage options, oh what fun!
A little tweak here, a little there,
Our code is cleaner, light as air!
So hop along, let’s test away,
With every change, a brighter day!" 🐇


📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 83fceab and 57bd89c.

📒 Files selected for processing (7)
  • .github/workflows/test.yml (1 hunks)
  • .gitignore (1 hunks)
  • README.md (1 hunks)
  • package.json (2 hunks)
  • src/builder.ts (1 hunks)
  • src/types/options.ts (1 hunks)
  • test/test.spec.ts (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (7)
  • README.md
  • .gitignore
  • src/types/options.ts
  • .github/workflows/test.yml
  • test/test.spec.ts
  • src/builder.ts
  • package.json

🪧 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.

CodeRabbit Configuration 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.

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: 2

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
test/test.spec.ts (1)

Line range hint 1-24: Consider optimizing test timeouts and adding edge cases.

While the implementation is correct, consider:

  1. Reducing the timeout from 100000000ms (~27.7 hours) to a more reasonable value like 30000ms (30 seconds)
  2. Adding test cases for edge cases:
    • Invalid computeCoverage values
    • Error scenarios
README.md (1)

126-126: Consider enhancing the documentation

While the addition is correct, consider adding the same detailed description as in the type definition to help users understand the purpose of this option.

-    computeCoverage?: boolean
+    // Collect coverage information for later use with the various `move coverage` subcommands
+    computeCoverage?: boolean
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3537ae2 and 29d8f9a.

📒 Files selected for processing (7)
  • .github/workflows/test.yml (1 hunks)
  • .gitignore (1 hunks)
  • README.md (1 hunks)
  • package.json (1 hunks)
  • src/builder.ts (1 hunks)
  • src/types/options.ts (1 hunks)
  • test/test.spec.ts (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
  • .gitignore
🔇 Additional comments (4)
test/test.spec.ts (2)

14-18: LGTM! Test case properly implements computeCoverage option.

The test case correctly implements the computeCoverage option alongside other test options, followed by appropriate cleanup.


20-23: LGTM! Good test coverage for default options.

The test case provides good coverage for the default scenario without options.

package.json (1)

32-32: Verify the test configuration approach.

The current setup ignores test.spec.ts in the main test command but tries to run it separately in the workflow. This might lead to:

  1. Missed test executions if the separate command fails
  2. Confusion for developers running tests locally

Consider either:

  1. Including the file in the main test run and removing the separate workflow step
  2. Moving the file to a separate integration test directory if it requires special handling
✅ Verification successful

The test configuration is correctly set up

The current setup is actually valid because:

  1. test.spec.ts is an integration test file that tests the Move package builder with long-running operations (100M ms timeout)
  2. Other test files (build.spec.ts, create.spec.ts, script.spec.ts) are unit tests that should run faster
  3. Jest configuration in jest.config.js is properly set up to recognize all tests in the test directory

The separation of the long-running integration test from the main test suite is a good practice to:

  • Keep the main test suite fast for developers
  • Allow CI/CD to run integration tests separately with appropriate timeouts
  • Prevent timeouts in environments with stricter limits
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check if there are other test files that might be affected
fd -e ts -e js --full-path '.*test.*' --exclude 'node_modules'

# Check if there are any other Jest configurations that might be affected
fd -e json -e js -e yaml --full-path '.*jest.*' --exclude 'node_modules'

Length of output: 227


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of jest.config.js for any specific test patterns or configurations
cat jest.config.js

# Check the content of test.spec.ts to understand its purpose
cat test/test.spec.ts

# Check the GitHub workflow file that runs the tests separately
fd -e yml -e yaml --full-path '.*workflow.*' --exclude 'node_modules' --exec cat {}

Length of output: 977

src/types/options.ts (1)

99-103: LGTM! Well-documented type addition

The new computeCoverage option is properly typed as an optional boolean and includes clear documentation explaining its purpose for collecting coverage information.

.github/workflows/test.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/builder.ts Show resolved Hide resolved
@djm07073 djm07073 force-pushed the fix/compute-coverage branch from 83fceab to 57bd89c Compare December 6, 2024 10:09
@djm07073 djm07073 requested a review from SeUkKim December 6, 2024 10:09
@djm07073 djm07073 merged commit f0a56d8 into main Dec 6, 2024
2 checks passed
@djm07073 djm07073 deleted the fix/compute-coverage branch December 6, 2024 10:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants