[ISSUE #1152] Add test case for MessageQueue #1153
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes introduce a new test module for the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
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
Documentation and Community
|
|
🚀Thanks for your contribution🎉. CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first🔥 |
![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)
rocketmq-common/src/common/message/message_queue.rs (2)
144-146: Consider adding tests for error scenarios and edge cases.While the current test coverage is good for happy paths, consider adding tests for:
- Invalid queue_id values (negative numbers)
- Empty/whitespace broker names
- Unicode characters in topics
- Very long strings for topic and broker_name
199-204: Make inequality tests more specific.The current test doesn't clearly identify which field differences cause inequality. Consider testing each field separately.
Here's a suggested implementation:
#[test] fn message_queue_inequality() { - let mq1 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker1", 1); - let mq2 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic2", "broker2", 2); - assert_ne!(mq1, mq2); + let base = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker1", 1); + + let different_topic = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic2", "broker1", 1); + assert_ne!(base, different_topic); + + let different_broker = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker2", 1); + assert_ne!(base, different_broker); + + let different_queue = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker1", 2); + assert_ne!(base, different_queue); }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
rocketmq-common/src/common/message/message_queue.rs(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
rocketmq-common/src/common/message/message_queue.rs (1)
144-221: Overall test implementation assessment.
The test implementation successfully addresses the PR objective of adding test cases for MessageQueue. The tests are well-structured and cover the basic functionality. However, to make the test suite more robust, consider implementing the suggested improvements:
- Add error scenarios and edge cases
- Enhance ordering tests
- Make inequality tests more specific
- Add Hash and Default trait tests
Despite these suggestions, the current implementation provides a solid foundation for testing the MessageQueue component.
| "MessageQueue [topic=topic1, broker_name=broker1, queue_id=1]" | ||
| ); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add tests for Hash and Default implementations.
The MessageQueue struct implements both Hash and Default traits, but these aren't explicitly tested.
Add these test cases:
#[test]
fn test_hash_implementation() {
use std::collections::HashSet;
let mq1 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker1", 1);
let mq2 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker1", 1);
let mq3 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic2", "broker1", 1);
let mut set = HashSet::new();
set.insert(mq1);
assert!(!set.insert(mq2)); // Should return false as equivalent item exists
assert!(set.insert(mq3)); // Should return true as this is a new item
}
#[test]
fn test_default_matches_new() {
let default_mq = MessageQueue::default();
let new_mq = MessageQueue::new();
assert_eq!(default_mq, new_mq);
}| #[test] | ||
| fn message_queue_ordering() { | ||
| let mq1 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker1", 1); | ||
| let mq2 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker1", 2); | ||
| assert!(mq1 < mq2); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Enhance ordering test coverage.
The current test only verifies ordering based on queue_id. Consider adding tests for:
- Ordering by topic
- Ordering by broker_name
- Different combinations of fields
Here's a suggested implementation:
#[test]
fn message_queue_ordering() {
let mq1 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker1", 1);
let mq2 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker1", 2);
+ let mq3 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic2", "broker1", 1);
+ let mq4 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker2", 1);
assert!(mq1 < mq2);
+ assert!(mq1 < mq3);
+ assert!(mq1 < mq4);
}📝 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.
| #[test] | |
| fn message_queue_ordering() { | |
| let mq1 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker1", 1); | |
| let mq2 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker1", 2); | |
| assert!(mq1 < mq2); | |
| } | |
| #[test] | |
| fn message_queue_ordering() { | |
| let mq1 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker1", 1); | |
| let mq2 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker1", 2); | |
| let mq3 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic2", "broker1", 1); | |
| let mq4 = MessageQueue::from_parts("topic1", "broker2", 1); | |
| assert!(mq1 < mq2); | |
| assert!(mq1 < mq3); | |
| assert!(mq1 < mq4); | |
| } |
Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)
Fixes #1152
Brief Description
How Did You Test This Change?
Summary by CodeRabbit
MessageQueuestruct to enhance test coverage.