Add additional tests to improve coverage #464
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several enhancements to the test suite across multiple files. A new test method is added to validate error handling in the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
tests/test_cache_hdf.py (1)
69-71: LGTM: Consider extracting common assertions
The test maintains consistency with previous methods while validating get_output behavior in a kwargs-only scenario.
Since all three test methods share identical get_output assertions, consider extracting these into a helper method to improve maintainability:
def assert_default_output(self, file_name):
flag, output = get_output(file_name=file_name)
self.assertFalse(flag)
self.assertIsNone(output)This would make the tests more DRY and easier to modify if the default behavior changes.
tests/test_executor_backend_mpi_noblock.py (1)
Line range hint 31-43: LGTM! Consider adding a docstring.
The new test method provides good coverage for the enabled dependencies scenario. Consider adding a docstring to explain the specific behavior being tested and how it differs from the disabled dependencies case.
def test_meta_executor_serial_without_dependencies(self):
+ """
+ Test executor behavior with dependencies enabled (disable_dependencies=False).
+ Verifies that futures are properly executed and completed when dependency
+ tracking is active.
+ """📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- tests/test_cache_executor_serial.py (1 hunks)
- tests/test_cache_hdf.py (4 hunks)
- tests/test_executor_backend_mpi_noblock.py (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
tests/test_cache_hdf.py (3)
7-7: LGTM: Import statement properly updated
The get_output function is correctly imported within the existing try-except block, maintaining the module's robustness against missing dependencies.
51-53: LGTM: Consistent test pattern
The test maintains consistency with the previous test method while validating get_output behavior in an args-only scenario.
36-38: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding test cases for positive scenarios
While the current test verifies the default state (flag=False, output=None), consider adding test cases where:
- flag is True
- output contains a value
This would provide more comprehensive coverage of the get_output functionality.
Let me check if there are any existing tests covering these scenarios:
tests/test_executor_backend_mpi_noblock.py (1)
Line range hint 16-43: Verify test coverage improvement
The new test cases improve coverage of the Executor's dependency handling functionality.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the shell script results, I can now provide a final response:
Test coverage for disable_dependencies is complete and non-redundant
The verification shows that:
- The
disable_dependenciesparameter is only tested intests/test_executor_backend_mpi_noblock.py - The tests cover both True and False cases with appropriate assertions
- No redundant tests exist in other test files
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the tests cover both dependency configurations
# and that there are no similar tests elsewhere that might be redundant.
# Test: Search for other tests of disable_dependencies to avoid duplication
echo "Checking for other disable_dependencies tests..."
rg -l "disable_dependencies.*=.*(?:True|False)" --type py --glob "test_*.py"
# Test: Check coverage of the Executor class configuration
echo "Checking Executor configuration coverage..."
rg "Executor\(" --type py --glob "test_*.py" -A 5
Length of output: 29291
tests/test_cache_executor_serial.py (1)
170-175: LGTM! Good addition of error handling tests.
The test method effectively validates that execute_in_subprocess raises ValueError for empty commands with different parameter combinations.
| def test_meta_executor_serial_with_dependencies(self): | ||
| with Executor( | ||
| max_cores=2, | ||
| backend="local", | ||
| block_allocation=False, | ||
| disable_dependencies=True, | ||
| ) as exe: | ||
| cloudpickle_register(ind=1) | ||
| fs_1 = exe.submit(calc, 1) | ||
| fs_2 = exe.submit(calc, 2) | ||
| self.assertEqual(fs_1.result(), 1) | ||
| self.assertEqual(fs_2.result(), 2) | ||
| self.assertTrue(fs_1.done()) | ||
| self.assertTrue(fs_2.done()) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Method name contradicts the test configuration
The method name test_meta_executor_serial_with_dependencies suggests testing with dependencies enabled, but disable_dependencies=True does the opposite. Consider renaming to test_meta_executor_serial_disabled_dependencies for clarity.
- def test_meta_executor_serial_with_dependencies(self):
+ def test_meta_executor_serial_disabled_dependencies(self):📝 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.
| def test_meta_executor_serial_with_dependencies(self): | |
| with Executor( | |
| max_cores=2, | |
| backend="local", | |
| block_allocation=False, | |
| disable_dependencies=True, | |
| ) as exe: | |
| cloudpickle_register(ind=1) | |
| fs_1 = exe.submit(calc, 1) | |
| fs_2 = exe.submit(calc, 2) | |
| self.assertEqual(fs_1.result(), 1) | |
| self.assertEqual(fs_2.result(), 2) | |
| self.assertTrue(fs_1.done()) | |
| self.assertTrue(fs_2.done()) | |
| def test_meta_executor_serial_disabled_dependencies(self): | |
| with Executor( | |
| max_cores=2, | |
| backend="local", | |
| block_allocation=False, | |
| disable_dependencies=True, | |
| ) as exe: | |
| cloudpickle_register(ind=1) | |
| fs_1 = exe.submit(calc, 1) | |
| fs_2 = exe.submit(calc, 2) | |
| self.assertEqual(fs_1.result(), 1) | |
| self.assertEqual(fs_2.result(), 2) | |
| self.assertTrue(fs_1.done()) | |
| self.assertTrue(fs_2.done()) |
| def test_execute_in_subprocess_errors(self): | ||
| with self.assertRaises(ValueError): | ||
| execute_in_subprocess(command=[], config_directory="test") | ||
| with self.assertRaises(ValueError): | ||
| execute_in_subprocess(command=[], backend="flux") | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider enhancing test coverage with additional cases.
While the current test covers basic error handling, consider adding:
- A docstring explaining the test's purpose
- Validation of error message content
- Additional invalid command scenarios
Here's a suggested enhancement:
def test_execute_in_subprocess_errors(self):
+ """Test that execute_in_subprocess properly handles invalid inputs."""
with self.assertRaises(ValueError):
- execute_in_subprocess(command=[], config_directory="test")
+ execute_in_subprocess(command=[], config_directory="test")
+
+ with self.assertRaises(ValueError) as cm:
+ execute_in_subprocess(command=None)
+ self.assertIn("command cannot be empty", str(cm.exception))
+
with self.assertRaises(ValueError):
execute_in_subprocess(command=[], backend="flux")
+
+ with self.assertRaises(TypeError):
+ execute_in_subprocess(command="not_a_list")📝 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.
| def test_execute_in_subprocess_errors(self): | |
| with self.assertRaises(ValueError): | |
| execute_in_subprocess(command=[], config_directory="test") | |
| with self.assertRaises(ValueError): | |
| execute_in_subprocess(command=[], backend="flux") | |
| def test_execute_in_subprocess_errors(self): | |
| """Test that execute_in_subprocess properly handles invalid inputs.""" | |
| with self.assertRaises(ValueError): | |
| execute_in_subprocess(command=[], config_directory="test") | |
| with self.assertRaises(ValueError) as cm: | |
| execute_in_subprocess(command=None) | |
| self.assertIn("command cannot be empty", str(cm.exception)) | |
| with self.assertRaises(ValueError): | |
| execute_in_subprocess(command=[], backend="flux") | |
| with self.assertRaises(TypeError): | |
| execute_in_subprocess(command="not_a_list") |
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Tests