Add unit tests for common.go in pkg/util #5331

NishantBansal2003 · 2024-08-08T15:10:58Z

What type of PR is this?
/kind failing-test

What this PR does / why we need it:
The test case coverage for common.go has been increased to 100%.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Ref #5235

Special notes for your reviewer:
To verify the changes in the pkg/util directory run the following commands:

go test ./... -coverprofile=coverage.out
go tool cover -html=coverage.out -o coverage.html
open coverage.html

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

codecov-commenter · 2024-08-08T15:29:05Z

⚠️ Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 28.48%. Comparing base (5a10d75) to head (9ca6274).

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5331      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   28.45%   28.48%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         632      632              
  Lines       43812    43812              
==========================================
+ Hits        12466    12479      +13     
+ Misses      30445    30437       -8     
+ Partials      901      896       -5

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	`28.48% <ø> (+0.02%)`	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

NishantBansal2003 · 2024-08-09T03:35:09Z

Hey @XiShanYongYe-Chang added 100% test coverage in pkg/util/common.go. PTAL...

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2024-08-09T03:39:35Z

Thanks @NishantBansal2003
/assign

NishantBansal2003 · 2024-08-09T04:57:01Z

Hey @XiShanYongYe-Chang, I have some doubts I hope you can resolve:

Suppose there is a helper function used to test the functionality of another function, but not all aspects of the helper function are utilized (and therefore remain untested). Should we create separate tests specifically for this helper function, or is it unnecessary to test it?
I've read some of your reviews on PRs where you mentioned, Although the current test content improves the file coverage, the test cases have no real meaning. Additionally, the maintenance cost is increased. Could you explain this further so I can avoid making similar mistakes?

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2024-08-09T07:18:02Z

Suppose there is a helper function used to test the functionality of another function, but not all aspects of the helper function are utilized (and therefore remain untested). Should we create separate tests specifically for this helper function, or is it unnecessary to test it?

I'm afraid I answered wrong. do you have any specific examples?

I've read some of your reviews on PRs where you mentioned, Although the current test content improves the file coverage, the test cases have no real meaning. Additionally, the maintenance cost is increased. Could you explain this further so I can avoid making similar mistakes?

The functions to be tested should have clear purposes and the logic can be tested. For example, different test paths can be used to form different test cases. If the test case requires the same maintenance cost as the function under test, then I don't think the test is needed.

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2024-08-09T07:25:26Z

pkg/util/common_test.go

+			added, removed := DiffKey(tt.previous, tt.current)
+			isAddedExpected := reflect.DeepEqual(added, tt.expectedAdded)
+			isRemovedExpected := reflect.DeepEqual(removed, tt.expectedRemoved)
+			if !isAddedExpected && !isRemovedExpected {
+				t.Errorf("added = %v want %v, removed = %v want %v", added, tt.expectedAdded, removed, tt.expectedRemoved)
+			}
+			if !isAddedExpected {
+				t.Errorf("added = %v, want %v", added, tt.expectedAdded)
+			}
+			if !isRemovedExpected {
+				t.Errorf("removed = %v want %v", removed, tt.expectedRemoved)
+			}


How about update like this:

added, removed := DiffKey(tt.previous, tt.current) - isAddedExpected := reflect.DeepEqual(added, tt.expectedAdded) - isRemovedExpected := reflect.DeepEqual(removed, tt.expectedRemoved) - if !isAddedExpected && !isRemovedExpected { - t.Errorf("added = %v want %v, removed = %v want %v", added, tt.expectedAdded, removed, tt.expectedRemoved) - } - if !isAddedExpected { + if !reflect.DeepEqual(added, tt.expectedAdded) { t.Errorf("added = %v, want %v", added, tt.expectedAdded) } - if !isRemovedExpected { + if !reflect.DeepEqual(removed, tt.expectedRemoved) { t.Errorf("removed = %v want %v", removed, tt.expectedRemoved) }

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2024-08-09T07:29:01Z

pkg/util/common_test.go

+	t.Run("keys exist", func(t *testing.T) {
+		mcs := map[string]sigMultiCluster{
+			kubefed.Name: kubefed,
+			karmada.Name: karmada,
+		}
+		got := Keys(mcs)
+		expect := []string{kubefed.Name, karmada.Name}
+		sort.Strings(got)
+		sort.Strings(expect)
+		if !reflect.DeepEqual(got, expect) {
+			t.Errorf("got = %v, want %v", got, expect)
+		}
+	})
+	t.Run("empty keys", func(t *testing.T) {
+		var mcs map[string]sigMultiCluster
+		got := Keys(mcs)
+		var expect []string
+		sort.Strings(got)
+		if !reflect.DeepEqual(got, expect) {
+			t.Errorf("got = %v, want %v", got, expect)
+		}
+	})


How about rewriting this test as tabel drive as well? Just like your rewrite above.

I thought the same. Now I'm doing it...

Signed-off-by: Nishant Bansal <nishant.bansal.mec21@iitbhu.ac.in>

NishantBansal2003 · 2024-08-09T08:54:23Z

I'm afraid I answered wrong. do you have any specific examples?

Yeah like this -

karmada/pkg/util/testing/mock_responder.go

Lines 32 to 36 in 6e9136d

    
           func NewResponder(response *httptest.ResponseRecorder) *MockResponder { 
        
           	return &MockResponder{ 
        
           		resp: response, 
        
           	} 
        
           }

Is used to test TestConnectCluster in https://github.com/karmada-io/karmada/blob/master/pkg/util/proxy/proxy_test.go
But other functions like -

karmada/pkg/util/testing/mock_responder.go

Lines 39 to 48 in 6e9136d

    
           func (f *MockResponder) Object(statusCode int, obj runtime.Object) { 
        
           	f.resp.Code = statusCode 
        
           	if obj != nil { 
        
           		err := json.NewEncoder(f.resp).Encode(obj) 
        
           		if err != nil { 
        
           			f.Error(err) 
        
           		} 
        
           	} 
        
           }

Has not been used, Hence remain untested. So should I create separate tests specifically for this(untested) function, or is it unnecessary to test it?

NishantBansal2003 · 2024-08-09T09:38:44Z

PTAL...

XiShanYongYe-Chang

Thanks~
/lgtm
/approve

karmada-bot · 2024-08-09T09:52:52Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: XiShanYongYe-Chang

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~pkg/util/OWNERS~~ [XiShanYongYe-Chang]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

XiShanYongYe-Chang · 2024-08-09T09:58:51Z

Has not been used, Hence remain untested. So should I create separate tests specifically for this(untested) function, or is it unnecessary to test it?

I understand that this is part of the test framework, no need to test them.

karmada-bot added the kind/failing-test Categorizes issue or PR as related to a consistently or frequently failing test. label Aug 8, 2024

karmada-bot requested review from chaunceyjiang and XiShanYongYe-Chang August 8, 2024 15:11

karmada-bot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Aug 8, 2024

NishantBansal2003 force-pushed the unit-tests-util-common branch from c7e2e93 to 13993ee Compare August 8, 2024 15:11

NishantBansal2003 force-pushed the unit-tests-util-common branch 2 times, most recently from 6805621 to 9ca6274 Compare August 8, 2024 17:28

karmada-bot added size/L Denotes a PR that changes 100-499 lines, ignoring generated files. and removed size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 8, 2024

karmada-bot assigned XiShanYongYe-Chang Aug 9, 2024

XiShanYongYe-Chang reviewed Aug 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

Add unit tests for common.go in pkg/util

bf0294b

Signed-off-by: Nishant Bansal <nishant.bansal.mec21@iitbhu.ac.in>

NishantBansal2003 force-pushed the unit-tests-util-common branch from 9ca6274 to bf0294b Compare August 9, 2024 08:44

NishantBansal2003 requested a review from XiShanYongYe-Chang August 9, 2024 09:43

XiShanYongYe-Chang reviewed Aug 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

karmada-bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 9, 2024

karmada-bot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 9, 2024

karmada-bot merged commit 37488bd into karmada-io:master Aug 9, 2024
12 checks passed

RainbowMango added this to the v1.11 milestone Aug 31, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add unit tests for common.go in pkg/util #5331

Add unit tests for common.go in pkg/util #5331

NishantBansal2003 commented Aug 8, 2024

codecov-commenter commented Aug 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading

NishantBansal2003 commented Aug 9, 2024

XiShanYongYe-Chang commented Aug 9, 2024

NishantBansal2003 commented Aug 9, 2024

XiShanYongYe-Chang commented Aug 9, 2024

XiShanYongYe-Chang Aug 9, 2024

XiShanYongYe-Chang Aug 9, 2024

NishantBansal2003 Aug 9, 2024

NishantBansal2003 commented Aug 9, 2024

NishantBansal2003 commented Aug 9, 2024

XiShanYongYe-Chang left a comment

karmada-bot commented Aug 9, 2024

XiShanYongYe-Chang commented Aug 9, 2024

Add unit tests for common.go in pkg/util #5331

Add unit tests for common.go in pkg/util #5331

Conversation

NishantBansal2003 commented Aug 8, 2024

codecov-commenter commented Aug 8, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

NishantBansal2003 commented Aug 9, 2024

XiShanYongYe-Chang commented Aug 9, 2024

NishantBansal2003 commented Aug 9, 2024

XiShanYongYe-Chang commented Aug 9, 2024

XiShanYongYe-Chang Aug 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

XiShanYongYe-Chang Aug 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

NishantBansal2003 Aug 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

NishantBansal2003 commented Aug 9, 2024

NishantBansal2003 commented Aug 9, 2024

XiShanYongYe-Chang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

karmada-bot commented Aug 9, 2024

XiShanYongYe-Chang commented Aug 9, 2024

codecov-commenter commented Aug 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading