Frontend tests #32
Frontend tests #32
Conversation
# Conflicts: # frontend/README.md # frontend/src/routes/models/+page.server.ts # frontend/src/routes/models/[slug]/observability/+page.server.ts # frontend/src/test/unit/index.test.ts # frontend/vite.config.ts
WalkthroughThe changes introduce a new section in the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
🪧 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: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (9)
frontend/src/routes/models/+page.server.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-10: Reminder: Add unit tests and complete PR checklistWhile the changes in this file look good, I noticed that the PR objectives mention adding unit tests. Please ensure that you've added appropriate tests for these changes, even if they're in a separate file.
Additionally, don't forget to complete the PR checklist in the description. This helps ensure all necessary steps have been taken before merging.
If you need any assistance with writing unit tests for these changes, feel free to ask, and I'd be happy to help!
frontend/src/routes/models/[slug]/observability/+page.server.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-15: Add unit tests as mentioned in PR objectives.The PR objectives mention adding unit tests, but no tests are visible in this file. Consider adding unit tests for the
loadfunction to ensure its correct behavior, especially regarding the API call and the returned data structure.Would you like assistance in generating unit tests for the
loadfunction?frontend/src/lib/types/Model/Model.ts (1)
1-26: Overall structure is good, consider adding documentation.The overall structure of this file is well-organized, with clear and logical type definitions for
Model,ModelsResponse,TimeSeriesItem, andTimeSeriesResponse. These types provide a solid foundation for type-safe operations related to models and time series data in your application.To further improve this file:
Consider adding JSDoc comments for each type definition. This will provide inline documentation and improve IDE support. For example:
/** * Represents a model in the system. */ export type Model = { // ... properties ... };If these types are part of a public API, consider creating a separate markdown file with more detailed documentation about each type and its usage.
Ensure that any changes made to these types are reflected in the API documentation, if applicable.
By adding documentation, you'll be addressing the "Documentation update" item in the PR checklist and improving the maintainability of your codebase.
Would you like assistance in generating the JSDoc comments for these type definitions?
frontend/src/lib/api/api.test.ts (3)
23-38: LGTM: Successful GET request test is comprehensive.The test effectively covers the happy path scenario for the
getfunction. It verifies that the correct URL is called with the appropriate method and headers, and that the response is properly parsed and returned.Consider adding a test case with query parameters to ensure they are properly handled in the URL construction.
51-61: Error handling test could be improved.The test correctly verifies that the
errorfunction is called with the appropriate status code when the API returns a non-ok response. This is good for checking the integration with@sveltejs/kit.Consider enhancing this test to verify that the
getfunction actually throws an error or rejects the promise. This can be done by wrapping thegetcall in atry-catchblock or usingexpect().rejects.toThrow(). For example:it('should throw an error if the response is not ok', async () => { mockFetch.mockResolvedValueOnce({ ok: false, status: 404 }); await expect(get('error-path')).rejects.toThrow(); expect(error).toHaveBeenCalledWith(404); });This change would ensure that the error is properly propagated from the
getfunction.
1-62: Overall, the test suite is well-structured and comprehensive.The tests cover the main scenarios for the
getfunction, including successful requests, empty responses, and error handling. The use of Vitest and appropriate mocking techniques demonstrates good testing practices.To further improve the test suite, consider:
- Adding tests for edge cases, such as handling of query parameters or different content types.
- Testing the behavior with different HTTP methods, if applicable.
- Verifying the handling of network errors (e.g., connection timeouts).
- Adding tests for any retry logic or specific error messages, if implemented in the
getfunction.These additions would provide even more robust coverage and help catch potential edge case bugs.
frontend/README.md (1)
71-72: Great addition of the "Running Tests" section!The new section provides clear instructions for running frontend tests, which aligns well with the PR objectives. The note about starting the backend before running tests is crucial information for developers.
Consider adding a brief explanation of why the backend needs to be started before running tests. This could help developers understand the test setup better.
frontend/src/lib/types/Model/Model.test.ts (2)
6-42: LGTM with suggestion: Consider adding type checks for fields.The test case for ModelsResponse is well-structured and comprehensive. It correctly checks for the presence of expected keys and logs warnings for additional fields, which is a good practice for catching API changes.
Consider adding type checks for the fields in addition to checking their presence. This would provide stronger guarantees about the API response structure. For example:
expect(typeof result.offset).toBe('number'); expect(Array.isArray(result.items)).toBe(true); if (result.items.length > 0) { const model = result.items[0]; expect(typeof model.name).toBe('string'); expect(typeof model.id).toBe('string'); expect(typeof model.online).toBe('boolean'); // ... and so on for other fields }
44-74: LGTM with suggestions: Consider parameterizing the test and adding more assertions.The test case for TimeSeriesResponse is well-structured and consistent with the previous test. However, there are a few areas where it could be improved:
- The
modelIdis hardcoded as '0'. Consider parameterizing this value or using a test fixture.- The query parameters in the API call are hardcoded. These could be made more flexible or meaningful.
- Similar to the previous test, type checking for the response fields could be added.
Here's an example of how you might improve this test:
it('should match TimeSeriesResponse type', async () => { const modelId = 'test-model-id'; const startTs = Date.now() - 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000; // 24 hours ago const endTs = Date.now(); const offset = '1h'; const algorithm = 'psi'; const result = (await api.get( `model/${modelId}/timeseries?startTs=${startTs}&endTs=${endTs}&offset=${offset}&algorithm=${algorithm}` )) as TimeSeriesResponse; // ... (rest of the test) if (result.items.length > 0) { const item = result.items[0]; expect(typeof item.value).toBe('number'); expect(typeof item.ts).toBe('number'); expect(typeof item.label).toBe('string'); } });This version uses more meaningful values for the query parameters and adds type checking for the item fields.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
- frontend/README.md (1 hunks)
- frontend/src/lib/api/api.test.ts (1 hunks)
- frontend/src/lib/types/Model/Model.test.ts (1 hunks)
- frontend/src/lib/types/Model/Model.ts (1 hunks)
- frontend/src/routes/models/+page.server.ts (1 hunks)
- frontend/src/routes/models/[slug]/observability/+page.server.ts (1 hunks)
- frontend/src/test/unit/index.test.ts (0 hunks)
- frontend/vite.config.ts (1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- frontend/src/test/unit/index.test.ts
🔇 Additional comments (9)
frontend/vite.config.ts (1)
7-7: Improved test file discovery configuration. Please verify test additions.The change to the test include pattern is a good improvement. It allows for more flexible placement of test files within the
srcdirectory and supports both.testand.specfile extensions for JavaScript and TypeScript.However, I noticed that the PR description checklist items, including "Added Unit Tests", are not marked. Given this configuration change:
- Have you added new unit tests taking advantage of this more inclusive pattern?
- If so, could you please update the PR description to reflect this?
- If not, do you plan to add more tests before this PR is merged?
To help verify the addition of new tests, you can run the following command:
This will list all test files matching the new include pattern. Please review the output to ensure it includes any newly added tests.
✅ Verification successful
To verify the addition of new test files, please run the following command:
Test files successfully added and align with the updated configuration.
- Please update the PR description to mark the "Added Unit Tests" checklist item.
- Ensure that all new tests take full advantage of the more inclusive
includepattern.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: List all test files in the src directory # Expected result: If new tests were added, they should appear in this list fd -e ts -e js . frontend/src -x echo {} | grep -E '(test|spec)\.(js|ts)$'Length of output: 192
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: List test files added in this PR # Expected result: New test files added should appear in this list git diff --name-status origin/main...HEAD | grep '^A' | grep -E 'frontend/src/.*\.(test|spec)\.(js|ts)$' | awk '{print $2}'Length of output: 201
frontend/src/routes/models/+page.server.ts (1)
2-2: LGTM! Verify other imports ofModelsResponse.The import path update for
ModelsResponselooks good. This change likely reflects a project restructuring.To ensure consistency across the codebase, please verify that all other imports of
ModelsResponsehave been updated accordingly. You can use the following script to check for any remaining old import statements:✅ Verification successful
Re-verifying imports without specifying file type.
Please run the following script to check for any remaining old import statements of
ModelsResponse:
Re-verifying imports using AST pattern matching.
Please run the following script to search for any remaining old import statements of
ModelsResponseusingast-grep:
All import statements of
ModelsResponsehave been successfully updated.No remaining old import statements of
ModelsResponsewere found in the codebase.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for old import statements of ModelsResponse # Search for old import statements echo "Searching for old import statements:" rg --type typescript "from '\$lib/types/Model'" -g '!frontend/src/routes/models/+page.server.ts' # Search for new import statements (for reference) echo "Searching for new import statements:" rg --type typescript "from '\$lib/types/Model/Model'"Length of output: 400
Script:
# #!/bin/bash # Description: Check for old and new import statements of ModelsResponse without specifying file type # Search for old import statements echo "Searching for old import statements:" rg "from '\$lib/types/Model'" -g '!frontend/src/routes/models/+page.server.ts' # Search for new import statements (for reference) echo "Searching for new import statements:" rg "from '\$lib/types/Model/Model'"Length of output: 294
Script:
# #!/bin/bash # Description: Use ast-grep to find import statements of ModelsResponse from old paths # Search for import statements importing ModelsResponse from '$lib/types/Model' echo "Searching for old import statements of ModelsResponse using ast-grep:" ast-grep --lang typescript --pattern "import { ModelsResponse } from '\$lib/types/Model';"Length of output: 246
frontend/src/routes/models/[slug]/observability/+page.server.ts (1)
3-3: LGTM! Verify consistent import updates across the project.The import path update for
TimeSeriesResponselooks correct. However, ensure that similar imports have been updated consistently across the project to maintain coherence.To verify the consistency of import updates, run the following script:
frontend/src/lib/api/api.test.ts (3)
1-12: LGTM: Imports and mocks are well-structured.The imports from Vitest and the module under test are appropriate. Mocking the global
fetchfunction and theerrorfunction from@sveltejs/kitis a good practice for isolating the tests and controlling the behavior of external dependencies.
14-21: LGTM: Test suite setup follows best practices.The use of
beforeEachandafterEachhooks to reset and clear mocks ensures a clean state for each test, preventing interference between tests. This is a good practice for maintaining test isolation.
40-49: LGTM: Empty response handling is correctly tested.This test effectively covers the edge case of an empty API response. Verifying that the
getfunction returns an empty object in this scenario is appropriate and helps ensure robust error handling.frontend/README.md (1)
Line range hint
71-110: Comprehensive test instructions, but PR checklist items need attentionThe new section provides detailed instructions for running different types of tests (unit and integration) using Vitest and Playwright. This is excellent for developer guidance.
However, I noticed that the PR checklist items are not marked as completed. Please ensure that you've addressed the following:
- Added Unit Tests: Confirm that new unit tests have been added for the frontend changes.
- Covered by existing CI: Verify that these tests are included in your CI pipeline.
- Integration tested: Ensure that integration tests have been performed and documented.
- Documentation update: While this README update is great, check if any other documentation needs updating.
To help verify some of these items, you can run the following script:
This script will help identify test files, CI configurations, and documentation changes. Please review the output and ensure all necessary items are addressed.
frontend/src/lib/types/Model/Model.test.ts (2)
1-5: LGTM: Imports and test structure are well-defined.The import statements and the describe block are correctly set up, providing a clear structure for the test suite.
1-75: Address PR objectives and complete checklist items.This file successfully adds unit tests for the Model types, which aligns with the PR objectives. However, there are a few items from the PR checklist that still need to be addressed:
- Ensure these tests are covered by the existing CI pipeline.
- Perform integration testing to verify the interaction between these models and other parts of the system.
- Update documentation if necessary to reflect any changes in the Model types or their usage.
To help verify CI coverage, you can run the following script:
This script will help verify if the new test file is included in the test configuration and if the CI pipeline is set up to run the tests.
Would you like assistance in creating integration tests or updating the documentation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
frontend/src/routes/models/+page.svelte (1)
Line range hint
1-35: Consider adding unit tests for this component.While this file change aligns with the PR objective of maintaining type consistency, I noticed that there are no unit tests visible for this component. To fully meet the PR objectives, consider adding unit tests to ensure the core API implementation functions correctly for this models page component.
Would you like assistance in generating unit tests for this component? I can help create a basic test suite that verifies the rendering of the models table and the correct usage of the
Modeltype.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- frontend/src/routes/models/+page.svelte (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
frontend/src/routes/models/+page.svelte (1)
2-2: LGTM! Verify the new import path.The import statement has been updated to reflect a new file structure for the
Modeltype. This change looks good and likely contributes to better code organization.To ensure the new import path is correct and consistent across the project, please run the following verification script:
✅ Verification successful
Verified the new import path. All imports correctly point to the updated
Modeltype file.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence of the new Model type file and its usage across the project. # Test 1: Check if the new Model type file exists fd --type file "Model.ts" frontend/src/lib/types/Model # Test 2: Check for any remaining imports from the old path rg --type svelte --type typescript 'from .+/types/Model\.js' frontend/src # Test 3: Check for usage of the new import path rg --type svelte --type typescript 'from .+/types/Model/Model' frontend/srcLength of output: 308
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence of the new Model type file and its usage across the project. # Test 1: Check if the new Model type file exists fd --type file "Model.ts" frontend/src/lib/types/Model # Test 2: Check for any remaining imports from the old path rg --type typescript 'from .+/types/Model\.js' frontend/src # Test 3: Check for usage of the new import path rg --type typescript 'from .+/types/Model/Model' frontend/srcLength of output: 288
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence of the new Model type file and its usage across the project. # Test 1: Check if the new Model type file exists fd --type file "Model.ts" frontend/src/lib/types/Model # Test 2: Check for any remaining imports from the old path in .svelte and .ts files rg -g "*.svelte" -g "*.ts" 'from .+/types/Model\.js' frontend/src # Test 3: Check for usage of the new import path in .svelte and .ts files rg -g "*.svelte" -g "*.ts" 'from .+/types/Model/Model' frontend/srcLength of output: 691
## Summary Added unit tests to ensure that our core API implementation is working, and to ensure type consistency with the backend. If the backend changes/removes any existing fields, then the frontend tests will fail. If the backend adds an additional field, the tests will succeed but show a warning in the console. First, start the backend: `sbt "project hub" run` Next, run your unit tests: `npm run test:unit` They will automatically re-run if you change the testing code. When we need CI/CD we can start the backend before running tests. ## Checklist - [x] Added Unit Tests - [x] Covered by existing CI - [ ] Integration tested - [x] Documentation update <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit ## Release Notes - **New Features** - Added a "Running Tests" section in the README to guide users on executing tests, including backend startup requirements. - Introduced unit tests for API functions and model response structures to ensure data integrity. - **Bug Fixes** - Updated import paths for type definitions in various files to improve organization without affecting functionality. - **Chores** - Removed an obsolete unit test file. - Modified the test configuration to include all test files across the source directory for better test coverage. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> --------- Co-authored-by: Piyush Narang <[email protected]>
Summary
Added unit tests to ensure that our core API implementation is working, and to ensure type consistency with the backend. If the backend changes/removes any existing fields, then the frontend tests will fail. If the backend adds an additional field, the tests will succeed but show a warning in the console.
First, start the backend:
sbt "project hub" runNext, run your unit tests:
npm run test:unitThey will automatically re-run if you change the testing code. When we need CI/CD we can start the backend before running tests.
Checklist
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Chores