Development: Execute architecture tests on module basis

[MaximilianAnzinger]

Checklist

General

• I chose a title conforming to the naming conventions for pull requests.

Server

• Important: I implemented the changes with a very good performance and prevented too many (unnecessary) and too complex database calls.
• I strictly followed the server coding and design guidelines.
• I documented the Java code using JavaDoc style.

Motivation and Context

As part of the modularization we want to run architecture tests on module basis.

Description

This PR:

• Removes the old Architecture Tests
• Introduces abstract test implementations for resources, services, and repositories that can be implemented by each module
• Implements the abstract tests per module

Review Progress

Code Review

• Code Review 1
• Code Review 2

Test Coverage

unchanged

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Introduced multiple new test classes for various modules (Assessment, Athena, Atlas, BuildAgent, Lecture) to enhance architecture validation.
  • Each class includes a method to specify the module package for testing purposes.

• Bug Fixes

  • Updated the visibility and return value of the getModulePackageName method in AtlasTestArchitectureTest to improve functionality.
  • Added transactional exclusions in LectureRepositoryArchitectureTest to manage specific scenarios during testing.

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Inline review comments failed to post

🛑 Comments failed to post (103)

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/lti/architecture/LtiServiceArchitectureTest.java (2)

1-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Overall implementation aligns well with PR objectives.

This new test class LtiServiceArchitectureTest successfully implements the architecture test for the LTI module. It adheres to the coding guidelines by being small, specific, and avoiding database access. The class extends AbstractModuleServiceArchitectureTest, which supports the PR objective of implementing abstract test implementations for modules.

The implementation allows for executing architecture tests on a per-module basis, specifically for the LTI module, which aligns with the primary goal of enhancing modularization in the Artemis project.

As the project continues to modularize, ensure that similar test classes are created for other modules to maintain consistency in architecture testing across the project.

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM with a minor suggestion: Consider adding @OverRide annotation.

The getModulePackage() method is implemented correctly, returning the appropriate package name for the LTI module. However, to improve code clarity and catch potential errors at compile-time, consider adding the @Override annotation.

Here's the suggested improvement:

+    @Override
     public String getModulePackage() {
         return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".lti";
     }

📝 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.

    @Override
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".lti";
    }

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/core/architecture/CoreServiceArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct, but could be improved.

The getModulePackage() method correctly provides the package for the core module. However, consider the following enhancement:

Add the @OverRide annotation to explicitly indicate that this method is overriding a method from the parent class. This improves code readability and allows the compiler to catch errors if the method signature doesn't match the parent class.

+    @Override
     public String getModulePackage() {
         return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".core";
     }

📝 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.

    @Override
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".core";
    }

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exam/architecture/ExamServiceArchitectureTest.java (1)

5-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class implementation is correct, but consider adding a test annotation.

The ExamServiceArchitectureTest class is well-structured and correctly extends AbstractModuleServiceArchitectureTest. The getModulePackage() method is implemented appropriately. However, consider adding the @Test annotation to explicitly mark this as a test class, adhering to JUnit 5 conventions.

Consider adding the @Test annotation to the class:

+import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;

+@Test
class ExamServiceArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleServiceArchitectureTest {
    // ... existing code ...
}

Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/iris/architecture/IrisServiceArchitectureTest.java (2)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration is appropriate. Consider adding Javadoc.

The class name and extension are correct. However, consider adding a class-level Javadoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class.

Add a class-level Javadoc comment, for example:

/**
 * Architecture test for the Iris module services.
 * This class ensures that the Iris module adheres to the defined architectural rules.
 */
class IrisServiceArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleServiceArchitectureTest {
    // ... existing code ...
}

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding Javadoc.

The getModulePackage() method correctly specifies the package for the Iris module. However, consider adding a method-level Javadoc comment for better documentation.

Add a method-level Javadoc comment, for example:

/**
 * Retrieves the package name for the Iris module.
 *
 * @return A String representing the full package name for the Iris module.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".iris";
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/lti/architecture/LtiResourceArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider a minor improvement.

The getModulePackage() method correctly overrides the abstract method and provides the appropriate package name for the LTI module.

Consider adding a brief JavaDoc comment to explain the purpose of this method:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the LTI module.
 * @return The fully qualified package name for the LTI module.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".lti";
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/quiz/architecture/QuizServiceArchitectureTest.java (1)

5-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class implementation is correct. Consider adding JavaDoc.

The QuizServiceArchitectureTest class is correctly implemented and extends the appropriate base class. The getModulePackage() method provides the expected functionality.

Consider adding a brief class-level JavaDoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class:

/**
 * Architecture test class for the Quiz module.
 * Ensures that the Quiz module adheres to the defined architectural rules.
 */
class QuizServiceArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleServiceArchitectureTest {
    // ... existing code ...
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/text/architecture/TextServbiceArchitectureTest.java (1)

5-5: ⚠️ Potential issue

Fix typo in class name and use a more descriptive name.

There are two issues with the class name:

1. There's a typo: "Servbice" should be "Service".
2. The name should be more descriptive as per our test naming guidelines.

Please apply the following changes:

- class TextServbiceArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleServiceArchitectureTest {
+ class TextModuleArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleServiceArchitectureTest {

This change corrects the typo and makes the test name more descriptive, indicating that it's testing the architecture of the Text module.

📝 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.

class TextModuleArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleServiceArchitectureTest {

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/architecture/AtlasServiceArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Add JavaDoc comment for the getModulePackage() method.

The method implementation looks correct. However, to adhere to the coding guidelines and improve code documentation, please add a JavaDoc comment for this method.

Here's a suggested JavaDoc comment:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the Atlas module.
 *
 * @return A String representing the full package name for the Atlas module.
 */
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".atlas";
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/core/architecture/CoreResourceArchitectureTest.java (2)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration is appropriate. Consider adding Javadoc.

The class name CoreResourceArchitectureTest is descriptive and follows test naming conventions. Extending AbstractModuleResourceArchitectureTest aligns with the PR objectives.

Consider adding a class-level Javadoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class:

/**
 * Architecture test for the core module resources.
 * This class implements module-specific tests by extending the abstract base class.
 */
class CoreResourceArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleResourceArchitectureTest {
    // ... existing code ...
}

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Add @OverRide annotation. Implementation looks good.

The getModulePackage() method implementation is correct and aligns with the core module focus. However, it's missing the @Override annotation.

Add the @Override annotation to explicitly indicate that this method is overriding a method from the parent class:

@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".core";
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/iris/architecture/IrisResourceArchitectureTest.java (2)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration is appropriate. Consider adding JavaDoc.

The class name and extension are correct. However, to improve documentation:

Consider adding a JavaDoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class. For example:

/**
 * Architecture test for the Iris module resources.
 * This class ensures that the Iris module adheres to the defined architecture rules.
 */
class IrisResourceArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleResourceArchitectureTest {

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding JavaDoc and using a constant.

The getModulePackage() method correctly specifies the package for the Iris module. To improve the code:

1. Add a JavaDoc comment to describe the method's purpose.
2. Consider using a constant for the ".iris" string to improve maintainability.

Here's a suggested implementation:

private static final String IRIS_MODULE = ".iris";

/**
 * Returns the package name for the Iris module.
 * @return The fully qualified package name for the Iris module.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + IRIS_MODULE;
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/quiz/architecture/QuizResourceArchitectureTest.java (2)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration is appropriate. Consider adding Javadoc.

The class QuizResourceArchitectureTest is correctly named and extends the appropriate abstract class. The package-private access is suitable for this test class.

Consider adding a Javadoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class, adhering to the JavaDoc style documentation requirement mentioned in the PR objectives.

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: getModulePackage() implementation is correct. Consider adding @OverRide annotation.

The getModulePackage() method correctly specifies the package for the quiz module.

Consider adding the @Override annotation to explicitly indicate that this method is overriding a method from the superclass:

+    @Override
     public String getModulePackage() {
         return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".quiz";
     }

📝 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.

    @Override
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".quiz";
    }

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/text/architecture/TextResourceArchitectureTest.java (2)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding JavaDoc.

The getModulePackage() method correctly specifies the module package for text resources. However, to improve documentation:

Consider adding a JavaDoc comment to explain the purpose of this method and its return value. For example:

/**
 * Retrieves the package name for the text module.
 *
 * @return The fully qualified package name for the text module.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".text";
}

---

1-10: 💡 Codebase verification

Action Required: Address Identified Issues

1. Typo in TextServbiceArchitectureTest.java:

   • Rename TextServbiceArchitectureTest.java to TextServiceArchitectureTest.java to correct the typo.
   • Update all references to this class to reflect the new name, ensuring consistency across the codebase.

2. Manual Verification Needed:

   • Verify the encoding of EncodingISO_8559_1.java manually to ensure it is set to UTF-8 and does not contain any invalid characters.

🔗 Analysis chain

Overall assessment: Well-structured and aligned with PR objectives.

This new test class successfully implements the modular architecture testing approach outlined in the PR objectives. It's concise, focused, and follows the project's naming conventions and structure. The implementation supports the goal of executing architecture tests on a per-module basis, specifically for the text module.

To further improve the file:

1. Consider adding a class-level JavaDoc comment to explain the purpose of this test class and its role in the modular architecture testing strategy.
2. Ensure that this class is covered by the project's test suite to validate its functionality.

To verify the integration of this new test class, run the following script:

---

Further verification required:

1. Check the encoding of EncodingISO_8559_1.java to resolve the UTF-8 issue.

2. Verify the existence and purpose of TextServbiceArchitectureTest.java to determine if it's a typo.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the integration of TextResourceArchitectureTest

# Test 1: Check if the test class is included in the test suite
echo "Checking if TextResourceArchitectureTest is included in the test suite:"
rg --type java -i "TextResourceArchitectureTest" src/test

# Test 2: Verify that there are no other text-related architecture test classes that might be redundant
echo "Checking for other text-related architecture test classes:"
fd -e java -p ".*Text.*ArchitectureTest\.java" src/test

# Test 3: Ensure that the AbstractModuleResourceArchitectureTest is properly implemented
echo "Checking the implementation of AbstractModuleResourceArchitectureTest:"
ast-grep --lang java --pattern $'class $_ extends AbstractModuleResourceArchitectureTest {
  $$$
  public String getModulePackage() {
    $$$
  }
  $$$
}'

Length of output: 1268

---

Script:

    #!/bin/bash
    # Description: Check the encoding of EncodingISO_8559_1.java

    file -bi src/test/resources/test-data/repository-export/EncodingISO_8559_1.java
    

Length of output: 153

---

Script:

    #!/bin/bash
    # Description: Verify the existence and correctness of TextServbiceArchitectureTest.java

    rg --type java -i "TextServbiceArchitectureTest" src/test
    

Length of output: 229

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/architecture/AthenaServiceArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Add JavaDoc comment to the getModulePackage() method.

The method implementation looks correct, but it's missing a JavaDoc comment. Please add a JavaDoc comment to comply with the coding guidelines and improve code documentation.

Here's a suggested JavaDoc comment:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the Athena module.
 *
 * @return A String representing the full package name of the Athena module.
 */
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".athena";
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/architecture/AtlasResourceArchitectureTest.java (2)

1-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Overall assessment: Well-structured and aligned with PR objectives.

This new test class for the Atlas module's resource architecture is well-implemented and aligns perfectly with the PR objectives of executing architecture tests on a module basis. It follows the provided coding guidelines, including proper test naming, size, and architecture enforcement. The implementation is concise, follows Java conventions, and doesn't introduce any performance issues or unnecessary complexity.

As you continue to implement similar test classes for other modules, consider creating a template or using code generation tools to ensure consistency across all module-specific architecture tests. This will help maintain a uniform testing structure throughout the project.

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding @OverRide annotation.

The getModulePackage() method correctly specifies the package for the Atlas module. The use of the ARTEMIS_PACKAGE constant is good for maintainability.

Consider adding the @Override annotation to explicitly indicate that this method is overriding a method from the superclass:

+    @Override
     public String getModulePackage() {
         return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".atlas";
     }

📝 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.

    @Override
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".atlas";
    }

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/lti/architecture/LtiRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Add @OverRide annotation to the getModulePackage method.

While the implementation looks correct, it's a best practice to add the @Override annotation when overriding a method from a superclass. This improves code readability and allows the compiler to catch errors if the method signature doesn't match the superclass method.

Please consider adding the @Override annotation as follows:

+    @Override
     public String getModulePackage() {
         return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".lti";
     }

📝 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.

    @Override
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".lti";
    }

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/architecture/AthenaResourceArchitectureTest.java (2)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration is correct. Consider adding Javadoc.

The class name and inheritance are appropriate. However, consider adding a Javadoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class, in line with the coding guidelines for documentation.

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding @Override annotation.

The getModulePackage() method correctly returns the package name for the Athena module. To improve code clarity and catch potential errors at compile-time, consider adding the @Override annotation if this method is indeed overriding a method from the superclass.

Consider updating the method declaration as follows:

+    @Override
     public String getModulePackage() {
         return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".athena";
     }

📝 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.

    @Override
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".athena";
    }

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/core/architecture/CoreRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (2)

5-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class implementation is correct, but consider adding test methods.

The class CoreRepositoryArchitectureTest is well-structured and follows the coding guidelines:

• Descriptive naming convention for test classes
• Extends the abstract test class as required
• Implements the getModulePackage() method correctly

However, the class currently lacks specific test methods. Consider adding test methods to validate the core repository architecture rules.

Would you like assistance in generating example test methods for this class?

---

1-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Overall assessment: Good start, but room for improvement

The CoreRepositoryArchitectureTest class provides a good foundation for testing the core repository architecture. It adheres to several coding guidelines, including descriptive naming, modular structure, and likely package rule enforcement through its parent class.

To fully align with the provided coding guidelines, consider the following improvements:

1. Add specific test methods using JUnit 5 features.
2. Implement assertThat assertions in your test methods.
3. Include database query count tracking tests if applicable to core repository architecture.
4. Ensure that any database access is avoided or properly mocked in the tests.
5. Consider adding JavaDoc comments to improve documentation.

These additions will enhance the test coverage and ensure full compliance with the project's coding standards.

Would you like assistance in implementing these improvements or generating example code that demonstrates these guidelines?

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/iris/architecture/IrisRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (3)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration is appropriate. Consider adding JavaDoc.

The class name is descriptive, follows the naming convention for test classes, and correctly extends AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest. However, to improve documentation:

Consider adding a class-level JavaDoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class. For example:

/**
 * Architecture test for the Iris module's repository layer.
 * This class ensures that the repository classes in the Iris module
 * adhere to the defined architectural rules.
 */
class IrisRepositoryArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest {
    // ... existing code ...
}

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding JavaDoc.

The getModulePackage() method correctly specifies the package for the Iris module. To improve documentation:

Consider adding a method-level JavaDoc comment. For example:

/**
 * Provides the package name for the Iris module.
 *
 * @return A String representing the full package name for the Iris module.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".iris";
}

Also, consider adding the @OverRide annotation to explicitly indicate that this method is overriding a method from the parent class.

---

1-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Overall, the implementation is correct and follows the modular architecture approach.

The IrisRepositoryArchitectureTest class is well-structured and correctly implements the required functionality for testing the Iris module's repository architecture. It adheres to the provided coding guidelines and supports the PR's objective of modularizing architecture tests.

To further improve the file:

1. Consider adding a package-info.java file for the de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.iris.architecture package to provide an overview of the package's purpose and contents.
2. If there are any specific architectural rules or constraints for the Iris module's repositories, consider adding custom test methods to this class to enforce those rules.

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/lecture/architecture/LectureServiceArchitectureTest.java (2)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration is appropriate. Consider adding Javadoc.

The class name is descriptive, follows test class naming conventions, and correctly extends AbstractModuleServiceArchitectureTest. The package-private visibility is suitable for test classes.

Consider adding a class-level Javadoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class:

/**
 * Architecture test for the Lecture module services.
 * This class verifies that the architectural rules for the Lecture module are followed.
 */
class LectureServiceArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleServiceArchitectureTest {
    // ... existing code ...
}

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Add Javadoc for clarity.

The getModulePackage() method correctly specifies the package for the Lecture module. Its implementation is simple and straightforward.

Consider adding a Javadoc comment to describe the purpose and return value of this method:

/**
 * Provides the package name for the Lecture module.
 *
 * @return A String representing the full package name for the Lecture module.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".lecture";
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/quiz/architecture/QuizRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (3)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration and structure are appropriate. Consider adding JavaDoc.

The class QuizRepositoryArchitectureTest is well-named and correctly extends AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest. The package-private access is suitable for a test class.

Consider adding a class-level JavaDoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class and its role in the module architecture testing strategy. For example:

/**
 * Architecture test for the Quiz module repositories.
 * This class ensures that the repositories in the Quiz module adhere to the defined architectural rules.
 */
class QuizRepositoryArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest {
    // ... existing code ...
}

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding @OverRide annotation and JavaDoc.

The getModulePackage() method correctly returns the package for the quiz module.

Consider the following improvements:

1. Add the @Override annotation to explicitly indicate that this method is overriding a method from the parent class.
2. Add a JavaDoc comment to describe the method's purpose.

Here's an example of how it could look:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the Quiz module.
 *
 * @return A String representing the full package name for the Quiz module.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".quiz";
}

---

1-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Overall assessment: The implementation is correct and aligns with PR objectives.

This new test class, QuizRepositoryArchitectureTest, successfully implements the architecture test for the Quiz module's repositories. It correctly extends the abstract class and provides the necessary module-specific information.

Key points:

1. The class structure and naming conventions are appropriate.
2. The implementation aligns with the PR objective of executing architecture tests on a module basis.
3. The code is concise and follows Java conventions.

To further improve the file:

1. Add class-level JavaDoc to describe the purpose of this test class.
2. Add the @Override annotation to the getModulePackage() method.
3. Add method-level JavaDoc to the getModulePackage() method.

These additions will enhance code documentation and make the purpose and functionality of the class more explicit to other developers.

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/text/architecture/TextRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (3)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class definition and inheritance are correct.

The class name is descriptive and follows the naming convention for test classes. It correctly extends AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest.

Consider adding a brief JavaDoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class, in line with the project's documentation standards.

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: getModulePackage() method implementation is correct.

The method correctly overrides the abstract method from the superclass and provides the specific package for the text module.

Consider adding a brief JavaDoc comment to explain the purpose of this method and its return value. For example:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the text module.
 * @return String representation of the text module package
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".text";
}

---

1-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Compliance with coding guidelines: Generally good, with room for minor improvements.

The test class adheres to most applicable guidelines:

• Located in the correct test directory
• Descriptive and specific test class name
• Small and focused on the text module architecture

To fully comply with the guidelines, consider the following improvements:

1. Add JavaDoc comments to the class and method for better documentation.
2. If applicable, ensure that this test class or its superclass uses assertThat for assertions and ArchUnit for enforcing package rules.
3. Verify that the abstract superclass implements necessary performance tracking and database access avoidance strategies.

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/architecture/AtlasRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding JavaDoc.

The getModulePackage() method correctly implements the required functionality for the Atlas module. It's concise and follows naming conventions.

Consider adding a JavaDoc comment to improve documentation:

+    /**
+     * Returns the package name for the Atlas module.
+     * @return The fully qualified package name as a String.
+     */
     public String getModulePackage() {
         return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".atlas";
     }

📝 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.

    /**
     * Returns the package name for the Atlas module.
     * @return The fully qualified package name as a String.
     */
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".atlas";
    }

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exercise/architecture/ExerciseServiceArchitectureTest.java (2)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration and inheritance are appropriate.

The class name is descriptive and follows the naming convention for test classes. The inheritance from AbstractModuleServiceArchitectureTest is suitable for module-specific architecture tests.

Consider adding a class-level JavaDoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class and its role in the exercise module's architecture testing.

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: getModulePackage() method implementation is correct.

The method correctly returns the package name for the exercise module by appending ".exercise" to the ARTEMIS_PACKAGE constant.

Consider adding a method-level JavaDoc comment to describe the purpose of this method and its return value.

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/lecture/architecture/LectureResourceArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Add @OverRide annotation to the method.

The getModulePackage() method implementation looks good and correctly defines the package for the lecture module. However, it's best practice to add the @Override annotation when overriding a method from a superclass.

Please add the @Override annotation as follows:

+    @Override
     public String getModulePackage() {
         return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".lecture";
     }

This change enhances code readability and helps catch errors if the superclass method signature changes.

📝 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.

    @Override
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".lecture";
    }

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/modeling/architecture/ModelingServiceArchitectureTest.java (2)

7-9: ⚠️ Potential issue

Add JavaDoc comment to getModulePackage() method.

To improve code documentation and adhere to the project's coding guidelines, please add a JavaDoc comment for this method.

Apply this change:

+    /**
+     * Returns the package name for the modeling module.
+     *
+     * @return A String representing the full package name for the modeling module.
+     */
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".modeling";
    }

📝 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.

    /**
     * Returns the package name for the modeling module.
     *
     * @return A String representing the full package name for the modeling module.
     */
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".modeling";
    }

---

5-5: ⚠️ Potential issue

Add @test annotation to the class.

To comply with JUnit 5 conventions and ensure that this class is recognized as a test class, please add the @test annotation.

Apply this change:

+import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;

+@Test
class ModelingServiceArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleServiceArchitectureTest {

Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/architecture/AthenaRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: getModulePackage() method is correctly implemented.

The method:

1. Overrides the abstract method from the parent class.
2. Correctly specifies the package for the Athena module.
3. Uses the ARTEMIS_PACKAGE constant, promoting consistency and maintainability.
4. Is small and specific, adhering to the test_size guideline.

Consider adding a brief JavaDoc comment to explain the purpose of this method, enhancing code documentation:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the Athena module.
 * @return String representation of the Athena module package
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".athena";
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exercise/architecture/ExerciseResourceArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding a JavaDoc comment.

The getModulePackage() method is well-implemented and follows the coding guidelines. It's small, specific, and uses fixed data as required. To further improve code documentation, consider adding a JavaDoc comment explaining the purpose of this method.

Here's a suggested JavaDoc comment:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the exercise module.
 *
 * @return A String representing the full package name for the exercise module.
 */
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".exercise";
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/modeling/architecture/ModelingResourceArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Consider using a constant for the module name.

The implementation of getModulePackage() is correct and overrides the abstract method as expected. However, to improve maintainability and reduce the risk of typos, consider defining a constant for the module name.

Apply this diff to introduce a constant for the module name:

 class ModelingResourceArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleResourceArchitectureTest {
 
+    private static final String MODULE_NAME = "modeling";
+
     public String getModulePackage() {
-        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".modeling";
+        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + "." + MODULE_NAME;
     }
 }

This change makes it easier to update the module name if needed and reduces the chance of typos in string literals.

📝 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.

class ModelingResourceArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleResourceArchitectureTest {

    private static final String MODULE_NAME = "modeling";

    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + "." + MODULE_NAME;
    }
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/architecture/AssessmentServiceArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding a brief JavaDoc.

The getModulePackage() method correctly returns the package name for the assessment module. It aligns with the modular approach by specifying the module-specific package.

Consider adding a brief JavaDoc comment to explain the purpose of this method:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the assessment module.
 * @return String representation of the assessment module package
 */
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".assessment";
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/buildagent/architecture/BuildAgentServiceArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Method implementation is correct, but missing @OverRide annotation.

The getModulePackage() method correctly specifies the package for the build agent module. However, it should include the @Override annotation to explicitly indicate that it's overriding a method from the parent class.

Consider adding the @Override annotation:

+    @Override
     public String getModulePackage() {
         return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".buildagent";
     }

📝 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.

    @Override
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".buildagent";
    }

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/fileupload/architecture/FileUploadServiceArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider a minor improvement.

The getModulePackage() method correctly specifies the package for the file upload module. It appropriately uses the ARTEMIS_PACKAGE constant, promoting consistency across modules.

For improved clarity, consider adding a brief JavaDoc comment explaining the purpose of this method:

/**
 * Specifies the package name for the file upload module.
 * @return The fully qualified package name for the file upload module.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".fileupload";
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/plagiarism/architecture/PlagiarismServiceArchitectureTest.java (2)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration is appropriate, consider adding JUnit 5 annotations.

The class name PlagiarismServiceArchitectureTest is descriptive and follows the naming convention for test classes. Extending AbstractModuleServiceArchitectureTest aligns with the PR objective of implementing abstract test implementations for modular architecture testing.

Consider adding JUnit 5 annotations like @ExtendWith(SpringExtension.class) if this class is intended to be run directly as a test class. If it's meant to be an abstract base class for other tests, the current declaration is fine.

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct, consider adding @OverRide annotation.

The getModulePackage() method correctly returns the package path for the plagiarism module. The implementation is simple and uses the ARTEMIS_PACKAGE constant, which is a good practice for maintaining consistency.

Consider adding the @Override annotation to the method for clarity:

+    @Override
     public String getModulePackage() {
         return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".plagiarism";
     }

This annotation helps to clearly indicate that this method is intended to override a method from the superclass.

📝 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.

    @Override
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".plagiarism";
    }

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/architecture/AssessmentResourceArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider a minor improvement.

The getModulePackage() method is well-implemented and follows Java naming conventions. It correctly returns the package name for the assessment module.

Consider using a string constant for ".assessment" to improve maintainability:

 public String getModulePackage() {
-    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".assessment";
+    private static final String ASSESSMENT_MODULE = ".assessment";
+    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ASSESSMENT_MODULE;
 }

This change would make it easier to update the module name if needed in the future.

Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/buildagent/architecture/BuildAgentResourceArchitectureTest.java (3)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration is appropriate. Consider adding JavaDoc.

The class name is descriptive, follows the naming convention for test classes, and correctly extends AbstractModuleResourceArchitectureTest. The package-private access is suitable for test classes.

Consider adding a class-level JavaDoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class and its role in the build agent module architecture testing.

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding @OverRide annotation.

The getModulePackage() method correctly returns the package for the build agent module.

Consider the following improvements:

1. Add the @OverRide annotation to explicitly indicate that this method is overriding a method from the parent class.
2. Add a JavaDoc comment to describe the purpose of this method.

Here's an example of how you could improve the method:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the build agent module.
 *
 * @return A String representing the full package name for the build agent module.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".buildagent";
}

---

1-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Overall, the file structure and implementation are correct. Consider expanding test coverage.

The BuildAgentResourceArchitectureTest class is correctly implemented and follows the modular architecture testing approach. However, there are a few areas for improvement:

1. Add class-level and method-level JavaDoc comments to improve documentation.
2. Consider adding more specific test methods for the build agent module, if necessary. This might include tests for specific architectural rules or constraints unique to the build agent.
3. Ensure that this test class is integrated into the overall test suite and CI/CD pipeline for the project.

To further improve the architecture testing for the build agent module, consider the following:

1. Implement specific ArchUnit tests to enforce package rules and dependencies within the build agent module.
2. Add tests to verify that the build agent components adhere to the overall system architecture and design principles.
3. If applicable, include tests to ensure proper separation of concerns and adherence to the module's API contracts.

Would you like assistance in implementing any of these suggestions?

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exercise/architecture/ExerciseRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding JavaDoc.

The getModulePackage() method correctly defines the module package for the exercise module. However, to improve documentation, consider adding a JavaDoc comment to describe the method's purpose and return value.

Here's a suggested JavaDoc comment:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the exercise module.
 *
 * @return A String representing the full package name for the exercise module.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".exercise";
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/fileupload/architecture/FileUploadResourceArchitectureTest.java (2)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration is appropriate. Consider adding a Javadoc comment.

The class FileUploadResourceArchitectureTest is well-named and correctly extends AbstractModuleResourceArchitectureTest. This aligns with the PR objective of implementing architecture tests on a per-module basis.

For consistency and improved documentation, consider adding a Javadoc comment to the class:

/**
 * Architecture test for the File Upload module resources.
 * This test ensures that the File Upload module adheres to the defined architectural rules.
 */
class FileUploadResourceArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleResourceArchitectureTest {
    // ... existing code ...
}

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: getModulePackage() method is correctly implemented. Consider adding a Javadoc comment.

The getModulePackage() method correctly provides the package name for the File Upload module. Its implementation is simple and effective.

For improved clarity and documentation, consider adding a Javadoc comment to the method:

/**
 * Provides the package name for the File Upload module.
 *
 * @return The fully qualified package name for the File Upload module.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".fileupload";
}

This addition will enhance code readability and provide clear documentation for the method's purpose.

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/modeling/architecture/ModelingRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (2)

1-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Overall assessment: Well-structured and consistent with project architecture.

This new test class for the modeling module's repository architecture is well-structured and consistent with the project's modular architecture. It correctly extends the abstract class for module repository architecture tests and provides the necessary implementation for the modeling module.

The file adheres to the provided coding guidelines, including:

• Descriptive test naming
• Small and specific test structure
• Enforcement of package rules (through the use of AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest)
• Avoidance of database access

As the project continues its modularization efforts, ensure that similar test classes are created for other modules, maintaining consistency in structure and naming conventions across the project.

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding @Override annotation.

The getModulePackage() method correctly returns the package for the modeling module. The use of the ARTEMIS_PACKAGE constant suggests consistency with other modules.

Consider adding the @Override annotation to explicitly indicate that this method overrides a method from the parent class:

+    @Override
     public String getModulePackage() {
         return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".modeling";
     }

📝 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.

    @Override
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".modeling";
    }

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/plagiarism/architecture/PlagiarismResourceArchitectureTest.java (1)

1-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Adherence to coding guidelines: Good, with room for improvement.

The file generally adheres to the applicable coding guidelines:

• The test class name is descriptive and follows conventions.
• The test class is small and specific to the plagiarism module.
• No unnecessary database access or complex queries are present.

However, consider the following improvements:

1. Add JavaDoc comments to the class and method to improve documentation.
2. Consider using @DisplayName annotation to provide a more descriptive name for the test class.

Would you like me to provide examples of these improvements?

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/programming/architecture/ProgrammingServiceArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Add JavaDoc comment for the getModulePackage() method.

The method implementation looks correct, but it's missing a JavaDoc comment. As per the coding guidelines, all Java code should be documented using JavaDoc style.

Please add a JavaDoc comment to describe the purpose of this method. Here's a suggested implementation:

+    /**
+     * Returns the package name for the programming module.
+     *
+     * @return A String representing the full package name of the programming module.
+     */
     public String getModulePackage() {
         return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".programming";
     }

📝 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.

    /**
     * Returns the package name for the programming module.
     *
     * @return A String representing the full package name of the programming module.
     */
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".programming";
    }

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/programming/architecture/ProgrammingResourceArchitectureTest.java (3)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration is correct. Consider adding JavaDoc.

The class name is descriptive, follows the naming convention for test classes, and correctly extends AbstractModuleResourceArchitectureTest. This aligns with the modular architecture testing approach mentioned in the PR objectives.

Consider adding a class-level JavaDoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class and its role in the modular architecture testing strategy.

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding @OverRide and JavaDoc.

The getModulePackage() method correctly implements the module package string for the programming module.

Consider the following improvements:

1. Add the @OverRide annotation to explicitly indicate that this method overrides a superclass method.
2. Add a method-level JavaDoc comment to describe the purpose of this method.

Example:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the programming module.
 *
 * @return The full package name as a String.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".programming";
}

---

1-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Adheres to applicable coding guidelines. Consider adding specific test methods.

The class adheres to the applicable coding guidelines:

• The class name is descriptive (test_naming).
• The class is small and specific to programming resource architecture (test_size).
• It extends AbstractModuleResourceArchitectureTest, which likely enforces package rules (archunit_use).

Consider adding specific test methods to validate the architecture rules for the programming module. These methods should:

• Use JUnit 5 features (junit5_features)
• Use assertThat for assertions (assert_use)
• Be specific in their assertions (assert_specificity)
• Track performance by counting database queries where applicable (db_query_count_tests)
• Avoid database access where possible (avoid_db_access)
• Use static mocks where necessary (mock_strategy)
• Minimize context restarts (context_restart_minimize)

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/architecture/AssessmentRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (2)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration is appropriate. Consider adding Javadoc.

The class name is descriptive, follows the naming convention for test classes, and correctly extends AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest. The package-private access is suitable for test classes.

Consider adding a Javadoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class, which would improve documentation and adhere to the Java documentation guidelines mentioned in the PR objectives.

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding @OverRide annotation and Javadoc.

The getModulePackage() method correctly returns the package string for the assessment module.

Consider the following improvements:

1. Add the @Override annotation to explicitly indicate that this method is overriding a superclass method.
2. Add a Javadoc comment to describe the method's purpose and return value.

Here's an example of how you could implement these suggestions:

/**
 * Returns the package string for the assessment module.
 *
 * @return A String representing the full package name for the assessment module.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".assessment";
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/buildagent/architecture/BuildAgentRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (2)

1-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Adherence to coding guidelines confirmed.

The test class follows the required naming conventions and structure for architecture tests. As an abstract implementation, it correctly avoids specific test methods or assertions.

Consider adding a brief JavaDoc comment to the class to explain its purpose and how it fits into the module's test architecture:

/**
 * Architecture test for the Build Agent module's repositories.
 * This class defines the package structure for the Build Agent module
 * and inherits test implementations from AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest.
 */
class BuildAgentRepositoryArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest {
    // ... existing code ...
}

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: getModulePackage() implementation is correct.

The method correctly returns the package name for the build agent module. For improved clarity, consider using string formatting or concatenation with a separator constant.

Consider refactoring the return statement for improved readability:

-    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".buildagent";
+    return String.format("%s.buildagent", ARTEMIS_PACKAGE);

or

-    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".buildagent";
+    private static final String PACKAGE_SEPARATOR = ".";
+    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + PACKAGE_SEPARATOR + "buildagent";

📝 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.

    public String getModulePackage() {
        return String.format("%s.buildagent", ARTEMIS_PACKAGE);
    }

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/architecture/CommunicationServiceArchitectureTest.java (2)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class definition is correct. Consider adding Javadoc.

The class definition is appropriate. It extends the correct abstract class and follows naming conventions.

Consider adding a Javadoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class, adhering to the coding guideline for documentation.

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: getModulePackage() method is correctly implemented. Consider adding @Override annotation.

The getModulePackage() method correctly returns the package name for the communication module.

Consider adding the @Override annotation to explicitly indicate that this method is overriding a method from the superclass.

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/fileupload/architecture/FileUploadRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (3)

5-5: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration is appropriate, consider adding Javadoc.

The class name is descriptive, and extending AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest aligns with the PR objectives. However, to improve documentation:

Consider adding a Javadoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class, for example:

/**
 * Architecture test for the File Upload module's repository layer.
 * This test ensures that the repository classes in the File Upload module
 * adhere to the architectural rules defined in the abstract parent class.
 */
class FileUploadRepositoryArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest {
    // ... existing code ...
}

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct, consider adding @Override annotation.

The getModulePackage() method correctly returns the package path for the file upload module.

To improve code clarity and catch potential errors during compilation, consider adding the @Override annotation:

@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".fileupload";
}

---

1-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Overall adherence to coding guidelines is good, consider adding specific tests.

The test class follows the naming conventions and is specific to the file upload module's repository architecture. It extends the abstract test class as intended, which aligns with the PR objectives.

To further improve the test coverage and adhere more closely to the coding guidelines:

1. Consider adding specific test methods that use JUnit 5 features and assertThat for assertions, if there are any file upload repository-specific rules to test.
2. If applicable, implement tests to track database query performance for file upload repository operations.
3. Ensure that the parent class AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest enforces package rules using ArchUnit, as this isn't visible in the current file.

These suggestions should be implemented only if they align with the specific requirements of the file upload module and don't duplicate tests from the parent class.

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/plagiarism/architecture/PlagiarismRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Add JavaDoc comment to the method.

The getModulePackage() method implementation is correct and appropriate. However, to improve documentation and adhere to the Java coding standards, please add a JavaDoc comment to the method.

Consider adding a JavaDoc comment like this:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the plagiarism module.
 *
 * @return A String representing the full package name for the plagiarism module.
 */
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".plagiarism";
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/tutorialgroup/architecture/TutorialGroupServiceArchitectureTest.java (2)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding JavaDoc.

The getModulePackage() method correctly specifies the package for the tutorial group module. However, to improve documentation:

Consider adding a JavaDoc comment to describe the method's purpose and return value. For example:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the tutorial group module.
 *
 * @return A String representing the full package name for the tutorial group module.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".tutorialgroup";
}

---

1-10: 💡 Codebase verification

Test Class Not Included in Test Suites

The TutorialGroupServiceArchitectureTest is not referenced in any test suite files, which means it may not be executed during the CI/CD pipeline. Please include this test class in the appropriate test suite to ensure it is run as part of the testing process.

🔗 Analysis chain

LGTM: File aligns well with PR objectives and coding guidelines.

This new test class effectively supports the PR's goal of implementing architecture tests on a per-module basis. It adheres to the coding guidelines by being small, specific, and avoiding database access. The class structure and implementation are appropriate for modular architecture testing.

To further improve the file:

1. Consider adding a class-level JavaDoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class.
2. Ensure that this class is included in the test suite and executed as part of the CI/CD pipeline to validate the tutorial group module's architecture.

To verify the integration of this test class, run the following script:

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the integration of TutorialGroupServiceArchitectureTest in the test suite

# Test: Check if the test class is referenced in any test suite files
echo "Searching for references to TutorialGroupServiceArchitectureTest in test suite files:"
rg --type java "TutorialGroupServiceArchitectureTest" src/test/java

# Test: Verify if there are any other architecture test classes in the tutorial group package
echo "Searching for other architecture test classes in the tutorial group package:"
fd --type f --extension java "ArchitectureTest" src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/tutorialgroup/architecture

Length of output: 1042

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/architecture/CommunicationResourceArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method implementation is correct. Consider adding JavaDoc.

The getModulePackage() method correctly specifies the package for the communication module. The use of the ARTEMIS_PACKAGE constant suggests consistency with other parts of the codebase.

Consider adding JavaDoc to the method for better documentation:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the communication module.
 *
 * @return A String representing the full package name of the communication module.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".communication";
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/tutorialgroup/architecture/TutorialGroupResourceArchitectureTest.java (2)

1-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Overall assessment: Well-structured and aligned with project goals.

This new test class TutorialGroupResourceArchitectureTest is well-implemented and aligns perfectly with the PR objectives of enhancing modularization and implementing architecture tests on a per-module basis. It follows the coding guidelines, uses appropriate naming conventions, and extends the abstract test implementation as intended.

The class structure is clean, focused, and adheres to the single responsibility principle. It successfully sets up the foundation for tutorial group module-specific architecture tests.

As you continue to implement module-specific tests, ensure that you maintain consistency across all modules. Consider creating a checklist or template for other developers to follow when implementing similar tests for other modules.

---

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: getModulePackage() method is correctly implemented.

The getModulePackage() method correctly provides the package path for the tutorial group module. It uses the ARTEMIS_PACKAGE constant, ensuring consistency with other modules.

Consider adding the @Override annotation to explicitly indicate that this method is overriding a method from the superclass:

+    @Override
     public String getModulePackage() {
         return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".tutorialgroup";
     }

📝 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.

    @Override
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".tutorialgroup";
    }

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/architecture/CommunicationRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-9: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM with a minor suggestion: Consider adding @OverRide annotation.

The getModulePackage() method correctly specifies the package for the communication module. It's concise and follows the small_specific guideline for test methods.

Consider adding the @Override annotation to explicitly indicate that this method is overriding a method from the parent class:

+    @Override
     public String getModulePackage() {
         return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".communication";
     }

📝 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.

    @Override
    public String getModulePackage() {
        return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".communication";
    }

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/lti/architecture/LtiTestArchitectureTest.java (1)

9-10: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method updated correctly. Consider adding JavaDoc.

The getModulePackage() method has been implemented correctly, providing a standardized way to define the module package. This change aligns with the PR's modularization objectives.

Consider adding a JavaDoc comment to the method for better documentation:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the LTI module.
 *
 * @return A String representing the full package name for the LTI module.
 */
@Override
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".lti";
}

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/architecture/AtlasTestArchitectureTest.java (1)

9-11: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Method updated to support modular architecture.

The getModulePackage method has been appropriately updated to support the modular architecture:

1. The method name is now more concise.
2. The visibility change to public improves accessibility for modular testing.
3. The return value now includes the full package name.

These changes align well with the PR objectives and coding guidelines.

Consider using a string constant for ".atlas" to improve maintainability:

 @Override
 public String getModulePackage() {
-    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".atlas";
+    private static final String ATLAS_MODULE = ".atlas";
+    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ATLAS_MODULE;
 }

Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/tutorialgroup/architecture/TutorialGroupRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (1)

13-17: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Address TODO comment and track technical debt.

The testTransactionalExclusions() method is currently implemented with a single exclusion. However, the TODO comment suggests that this method should be removed once all repositories are tested. To ensure this technical debt is addressed:

1. Create a ticket to track the removal of this method and the completion of repository tests.
2. Update the comment to include the ticket number for easier tracking.

Example:

// TODO: Remove this method once all repositories are tested (TICKET-123)

This will help in monitoring the progress of the modularization efforts and ensure that this temporary solution is not forgotten.

Would you like me to create a GitHub issue to track this technical debt?

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/lecture/architecture/LectureRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-7: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration is appropriate. Consider making it public.

The class name is descriptive and follows the naming convention for test classes. Extending AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest is appropriate for a module-specific repository architecture test.

Consider making the class public for consistency with JUnit conventions:

-class LectureRepositoryArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest {
+public class LectureRepositoryArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest {

📝 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.

public class LectureRepositoryArchitectureTest extends AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest {

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exam/architecture/ExamRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (1)

7-7: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: Class declaration is appropriate, consider adding Javadoc.

The class name is descriptive, follows the naming convention for test classes, and correctly extends AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest. The package-private access is appropriate for a test class.

Consider adding a Javadoc comment to describe the purpose of this test class, which would improve documentation and align with the JavaDoc style mentioned in the PR objectives.

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/programming/architecture/ProgrammingRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (2)

9-11: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

LGTM: getModulePackage() method is correctly implemented.

The method correctly returns the package for the programming module. For improved clarity, consider adding a brief JavaDoc comment explaining the purpose of this method.

Consider adding a JavaDoc comment:

/**
 * Returns the package name for the programming module.
 * @return String representation of the programming module package
 */
public String getModulePackage() {
    return ARTEMIS_PACKAGE + ".programming";
}

---

13-18: 💡 Codebase verification

Centralize tracking for TODO comments regarding repository testing.

Multiple TODO comments across different repository architecture tests indicate the removal of testTransactionalExclusions() once all repositories are tested. To ensure these removals are not overlooked, please create a GitHub issue to track this progress and link it in each TODO comment.

• src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/tutorialgroup/architecture/TutorialGroupRepositoryArchitectureTest.java
• src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/shared/architecture/module/AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest.java
• src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/lecture/architecture/LectureRepositoryArchitectureTest.java
• src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/programming/architecture/ProgrammingRepositoryArchitectureTest.java
• src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exam/architecture/ExamRepositoryArchitectureTest.java

🔗 Analysis chain

Clarify the TODO comment and create a tracking issue.

The testTransactionalExclusions() method is correctly implemented and provides an exclusion for the ProgrammingExerciseImportBasicService.importProgrammingExerciseBasis method. However, the TODO comment needs clarification.

Please clarify:

1. What conditions need to be met before this method can be removed?
2. Is there a timeline or specific milestone for when all repositories will be tested?

Consider creating a GitHub issue to track the removal of this method and link it in the TODO comment. This will help ensure it's not forgotten and provide context for future developers.

To verify if there are any other TODO comments related to this issue, you can run the following command:

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for TODO comments related to repository testing
rg --type java "TODO.*repositories are tested" src/test/java

Length of output: 954

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/shared/architecture/module/AbstractModuleTestArchitectureTest.java (1)

12-12: ⚠️ Potential issue

Correct the modifier order in the method declaration

In Java, the access modifier should precede the abstract keyword. Change abstract protected to protected abstract for consistency with Java conventions.

Apply this diff to fix the modifier order:

-    abstract protected Class<T> getAbstractModuleIntegrationTestClass();
+    protected abstract Class<T> getAbstractModuleIntegrationTestClass();

📝 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.

    protected abstract Class<T> getAbstractModuleIntegrationTestClass();

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/shared/architecture/module/ModuleArchitectureTest.java (1)

13-52: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Recommend Adding JavaDoc Comments to Public Interface and Methods

The public interface ModuleArchitectureTest and its methods currently lack JavaDoc comments. Including JavaDoc comments will enhance code readability and maintainability, helping other developers understand the purpose and usage of the interface and its methods. This also aligns with the PR objective to ensure that Java code is documented using JavaDoc style.

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/shared/architecture/module/AbstractModuleServiceArchitectureTest.java (1)

72-72: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Consider improving variable name for clarity

The variable noCallsFromOwnClass could be renamed to asyncMethodsNotCalledWithinSameClass to more accurately reflect its purpose, enhancing code readability.

Apply this diff to rename the variable:

-var noCallsFromOwnClass = methodsOfThisModuleThat().areAnnotatedWith(Async.class).should(new ArchCondition<>("not be called within the same class") {
+var asyncMethodsNotCalledWithinSameClass = methodsOfThisModuleThat().areAnnotatedWith(Async.class).should(new ArchCondition<>("not be called within the same class") {

📝 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.

        var asyncMethodsNotCalledWithinSameClass = methodsOfThisModuleThat().areAnnotatedWith(Async.class).should(new ArchCondition<>("not be called within the same class") {

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/shared/architecture/module/AbstractModuleResourceArchitectureTest.java (1)

61-66: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Address the TODO: Plan for removing ModelAndView dependencies

The TODO comment indicates an intention to move away from ModelAndView. Prioritizing this refactoring will modernize the REST API and improve consistency. Once all usages are removed, the test can be adjusted accordingly.

Would you like assistance in identifying and refactoring the remaining uses of ModelAndView? I can help generate a plan or suggest code changes to facilitate this transition.

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/shared/architecture/module/AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (11)

185-186: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)

Clarify Variable Naming in usedInProductionCode Test

Ensure that the predicate accurately captures production classes. The anonymous DescribedPredicate could be replaced with a clearer, named predicate for better readability.

Consider refactoring the predicate definition for clarity.

---

279-286: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Optimize replaceLast Utility Method

The replaceLast method manually replaces the last occurrence of a substring. This can be simplified using built-in string functions for better performance and readability.

Consider refactoring the method:

private String replaceLast(String string, String substring, String replacement) {
    return StringUtils.replaceLast(string, substring, replacement);
}

Ensure that the appropriate utility function is used, and import any necessary libraries.

---

168-169: ⚠️ Potential issue

Ensure Rule Applies to Correct Classes in repositoriesImplementArtemisJpaRepository Test

The rule checks that repositories are assignable to ArtemisJpaRepository. Verify that the rule is applied to productionClasses to focus on production repositories.

Update the rule application:

- .allowEmptyShould(true).check(allClasses);
+ .allowEmptyShould(true).check(productionClasses);

📝 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.

        classesOfThisModuleThat().areAssignableTo(JpaRepository.class).and().doNotBelongToAnyOf(RepositoryImpl.class).should().beAssignableTo(ArtemisJpaRepository.class)
                .allowEmptyShould(true).check(productionClasses);

---

61-63: ⚠️ Potential issue

Verify the Rule Applies to the Correct Classes

In the testJPQLStyle test, the rule is applied to allClasses. To align with guidelines and avoid including test classes, consider checking against productionClasses.

Apply this diff:

- queryRule.allowEmptyShould(true).check(allClasses);
+ queryRule.allowEmptyShould(true).check(productionClasses);

📝 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.

        var queryRule = methodsOfThisModuleThat().areAnnotatedWith(Query.class).should(USE_UPPER_CASE_SQL_STYLE).because("@Query content should follow the style guide");
        // allow empty should since some modules do not have any @Query methods
        queryRule.allowEmptyShould(true).check(productionClasses);

---

159-162: ⚠️ Potential issue

Use allowEmptyShould(true) for Consistency

In the testOnlySpringTransactionalAnnotation test, consider adding allowEmptyShould(true) to handle modules without repositories, maintaining consistency with other tests.

Apply this diff:

- onlySpringTransactionalAnnotation.check(allClasses);
+ onlySpringTransactionalAnnotation.allowEmptyShould(true).check(allClasses);

📝 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.

        ArchRule onlySpringTransactionalAnnotation = noMethodsOfThisModule().should().beAnnotatedWith(javax.transaction.Transactional.class).orShould()
                .beAnnotatedWith(jakarta.transaction.Transactional.class)
                .because("Only Spring's Transactional annotation should be used as the usage of the other two is not reliable.");
        onlySpringTransactionalAnnotation.allowEmptyShould(true).check(allClasses);

---

45-48: ⚠️ Potential issue

Ensure Correct Usage of productionClasses Instead of allClasses

In the shouldBeNamedRepository test, the rule is checked against allClasses, which includes both production and test classes. According to the coding guidelines, tests should focus on production code to avoid false positives from test classes.

Apply this diff to check the rule against productionClasses:

- rule.allowEmptyShould(true).check(allClasses);
+ rule.allowEmptyShould(true).check(productionClasses);

📝 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.

        ArchRule rule = classesOfThisModuleThat().areAnnotatedWith(Repository.class).should().haveSimpleNameEndingWith("Repository")
                .because("repositories should have a name ending with 'Repository'.");
        // allow empty should since some modules do not have repositories
        rule.allowEmptyShould(true).check(productionClasses);

---

130-132: ⚠️ Potential issue

Verify Rule Scope in persistenceShouldNotAccessServices Test

The rule checks that repository classes do not access service classes. Ensure that the rule is applied to productionClasses to avoid false positives from test code.

Update the rule application:

- .allowEmptyShould(true).check(allClasses);
+ .allowEmptyShould(true).check(productionClasses);

📝 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.

        // allow empty should since some modules do not have repositories
        noClassesOfThisModuleThat().areAnnotatedWith(Repository.class).should().accessClassesThat().areAnnotatedWith(Service.class).allowEmptyShould(true).check(productionClasses);
    }

---

112-116: ⚠️ Potential issue

Correct Logical Error in testNoEntityGraphsOnQueries

The rule currently checks that methods annotated with @Query should be annotated with @EntityGraph, which contradicts the intention stated in the because clause. Since Spring Boot 3 ignores @EntityGraph on JPQL queries, methods annotated with @Query should not be annotated with @EntityGraph.

Apply this diff to correct the rule:

- .should().beAnnotatedWith(EntityGraph.class)
+ .should().notBeAnnotatedWith(EntityGraph.class)

📝 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.

        ArchRule noEntityGraphsOnQueries = noMethodsOfThisModuleThat().areAnnotatedWith(Query.class).and().areDeclaredInClassesThat().areInterfaces().and()
                .areDeclaredInClassesThat().areAnnotatedWith(Repository.class).should().notBeAnnotatedWith(EntityGraph.class)
                .because("Spring Boot 3 ignores EntityGraphs on JPQL queries. You need to integrate a JOIN FETCH into the query.");
        // allow empty should since some modules do not have any @Query methods
        noEntityGraphsOnQueries.allowEmptyShould(true).check(productionClasses);

---

211-213: ⚠️ Potential issue

Check for Typos in Package Names

In the enforcePrimaryBeanAnnotationOnTestRepositories test, verify that the package name ..test_repository.. is correct. Java package names typically do not contain underscores.

If test_repository is the intended package name, ensure that it aligns with the actual package structure. Otherwise, update the package pattern.

- .resideInAPackage("..test_repository..")
+ .resideInAPackage("..testrepository..")

Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.

---

135-136: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Remove Unused Method testTransactionalExclusions

The testTransactionalExclusions method is marked with a TODO comment to be removed once all repositories are tested. If it's no longer needed, consider removing it to clean up the codebase.

Apply this diff to remove the method:

- // TODO: This method should be removed once all repositories are tested
- protected Set<String> testTransactionalExclusions() {
-     return Set.of();
- }

📝 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.

---

222-250: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Remove Commented-Out Code and Unnecessary Comments

In the notUseRepositoriesWithSubclasses method, there are commented-out lines and explanatory comments that may not be necessary in the final code. Clean up the method for better readability.

Apply this diff:

- // Alternatively, if your repositories are in a specific package, you can use:
- // return javaClass.getPackageName().startsWith("com.yourapp.repositories");

📝 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.

    private ArchCondition<JavaClass> notUseRepositoriesWithSubclasses() {
        return new ArchCondition<>("not use repositories with subclasses") {

            @Override
            public void check(JavaClass testClass, ConditionEvents events) {
                for (JavaField field : testClass.getAllFields()) {
                    JavaType fieldType = field.getRawType();

                    if (isRepository(fieldType)) {
                        JavaClass repositoryClass = fieldType.toErasure();

                        if (!repositoryClass.getSubclasses().isEmpty()) {
                            String message = String.format("Test class %s uses repository %s which has subclasses: %s", testClass.getName(), repositoryClass.getName(),
                                    repositoryClass.getSubclasses());
                            events.add(SimpleConditionEvent.violated(testClass, message));
                        }
                    }
                }
            }

            private boolean isRepository(JavaType javaType) {
                JavaClass javaClass = javaType.toErasure();
                // Check if the type is a repository by seeing if it implements JpaRepository
                return javaClass.isAssignableTo(JpaRepository.class);
            }
        };
    }

[JohannesStoehr]

Refactoring looks good to me

[cremertim]

Refactoring lgtm

[cremertim]

Reapprove after signiture change

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between e852646 and d7cf113.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/lecture/architecture/LectureRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (1)

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/lecture/architecture/LectureRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (1)

Pattern src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: true

🔇 Additional comments (4)

src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/lecture/architecture/LectureRepositoryArchitectureTest.java (4)

1-6: LGTM: Package declaration and imports are correct.

The package declaration follows the project's naming convention, and the imports are correctly specified and necessary for the class implementation.

---

7-7: LGTM: Class declaration is appropriate.

The class name LectureRepositoryArchitectureTest is descriptive and follows the naming convention for test classes. It correctly extends AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest, which aligns with the PR objective of implementing abstract test implementations for modular architecture testing.

---

9-11: LGTM: getModulePackage() method is correctly implemented.

The getModulePackage() method is well-named, follows Java conventions, and correctly specifies the package for the lecture module. Its public visibility is appropriate for overriding a method from the parent class.

---

1-19: Summary: Implementation aligns well with PR objectives.

This new test class, LectureRepositoryArchitectureTest, successfully implements the abstract test structure for the lecture module's repository architecture. It aligns well with the PR objectives of enhancing modularization and implementing abstract test implementations. The code is clean, well-structured, and follows Java conventions.

Key points:

1. Correctly extends AbstractModuleRepositoryArchitectureTest
2. Implements getModulePackage() to specify the lecture module package
3. Overrides testTransactionalExclusions() with a TODO for future removal

The implementation contributes to the goal of executing architecture tests on a per-module basis, supporting the ongoing modularization efforts within the project.

[JohannesStoehr]

Reapprove after merge