Skip to content

[ISSUE #1338]🧪Add Unit test for ProducerData #1339

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 26, 2024
Merged

Conversation

what-design
Copy link
Contributor

@what-design what-design commented Nov 26, 2024

Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)

Fixes #1338

Brief Description

How Did You Test This Change?

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Introduced a new test module for validating the functionality of the ProducerData struct.
    • Added unit tests covering default values, equality, inequality, serialization, deserialization, and hashing.

These enhancements improve the reliability and confidence in the ProducerData functionality.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 26, 2024

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request introduce a new test module for the ProducerData struct located in rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/heartbeat/producer_data.rs. This module is conditionally compiled for testing and includes several unit tests that validate various functionalities of the ProducerData struct, such as default values, equality, serialization, and hashing.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/heartbeat/producer_data.rs Added a new test module with unit tests for ProducerData, covering default values, equality, inequality, serialization, deserialization, and hashing.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective Addressed Explanation
Add Unit test for ProducerData (#1338)

Possibly related PRs

  • [ISSUE #1328]🧪Add test for ConsumerData #1329: The changes in this PR involve adding a test module for the ConsumerData struct, which includes tests for default values, equality, and hashing, similar to the tests added for the ProducerData struct in the main PR.

Suggested labels

approved, auto merge, testing, AI review first

Suggested reviewers

  • TeslaRustor
  • SpaceXCN
  • mxsm

Poem

🐰 In the meadow where data grows,
A ProducerData test now flows.
With checks for values, both big and small,
Ensuring correctness, we stand tall!
So hop along, let’s celebrate,
For tests like these, we can’t wait! 🌼


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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@rocketmq-rust-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

🔊@what-design 🚀Thanks for your contribution 🎉. CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first 🔥

@rocketmq-rust-bot rocketmq-rust-bot added AI review first Ai review pr first ready to review waiting-review waiting review this PR labels Nov 26, 2024
@rocketmq-rust-robot rocketmq-rust-robot added this to the v0.4.0 milestone Nov 26, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 26, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 20.07%. Comparing base (2185f0d) to head (1fe8157).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1339      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   19.99%   20.07%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         434      434              
  Lines       54638    54691      +53     
==========================================
+ Hits        10925    10978      +53     
  Misses      43713    43713              

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

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/heartbeat/producer_data.rs (1)

65-79: Add edge cases for serialization tests.

While the basic serialization/deserialization tests are good, consider adding tests for:

  • Group names with special characters
  • Empty group names
  • Very long group names
  • Invalid JSON handling

Here's a suggested implementation:

#[test]
fn serialize_producer_data_edge_cases() {
    let cases = vec![
        ("", r#"{"groupName":""}"#),
        ("group@#$%", r#"{"groupName":"group@#$%"}"#),
        ("a".repeat(1000), format!(r#"{{"groupName":"{}"}}"#, "a".repeat(1000))),
    ];
    
    for (input, expected) in cases {
        let producer_data = ProducerData {
            group_name: CheetahString::from(input),
        };
        let serialized = serde_json::to_string(&producer_data).unwrap();
        assert_eq!(serialized, expected);
    }
}

#[test]
fn deserialize_producer_data_invalid_json() {
    let invalid_jsons = vec![
        r#"{"groupName":}"#,
        r#"{"wrongField":"group1"}"#,
    ];
    
    for invalid_json in invalid_jsons {
        assert!(serde_json::from_str::<ProducerData>(invalid_json).is_err());
    }
}
📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2185f0d and 1fe8157.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/heartbeat/producer_data.rs (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
rocketmq-remoting/src/protocol/heartbeat/producer_data.rs (5)

33-37: LGTM! Well-structured default value test.

The test properly verifies the default state of ProducerData.


39-63: LGTM! Comprehensive equality testing.

The equality and inequality tests are well-implemented, covering both positive and negative cases.


81-100: LGTM! Thorough hash consistency test.

The hash test properly verifies that the same ProducerData instance produces consistent hash values.


27-101: Overall test implementation looks solid! 🎉

The test module provides good coverage of the ProducerData functionality, including:

  • Default values
  • Equality comparisons
  • Serialization/deserialization
  • Hash consistency

While the current implementation is solid, consider adding the suggested edge cases to make it even more robust.


Line range hint 21-25: Verify the necessity of CheetahString

The struct is well-designed with appropriate trait derivations. However, let's verify if CheetahString is the optimal choice here compared to the standard String type.

@mxsm mxsm merged commit 5cbca70 into mxsm:main Nov 26, 2024
22 of 25 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
AI review first Ai review pr first ready to review waiting-review waiting review this PR
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Unit Test🧪] Add Unit test for ProducerData
4 participants