Adding more tests + iterative test example.

EmbeddedDevops1 commented 4 weeks ago

PR Type

Tests, Enhancement

Description

Added new tests for FastAPI app, specifically for the /current-date endpoint.
Enhanced AICaller tests with additional scenarios including WANDB logging, API base, and system key handling.
Introduced tests to handle rendering exceptions in PromptBuilder.
Created a script (increase_coverage.py) to iteratively run Cover Agent for multiple source and test files.
Updated documentation to include instructions for running the new coverage script.

Changes walkthrough 📝

Relevant files

Tests

test_app.py Add test for `/current-date` endpoint in FastAPI app templated_tests/python_fastapi/test_app.py Added test for `/current-date` endpoint. Imported `date` module for date comparison.	+15/-0
test_AICaller.py Add comprehensive tests for `AICaller` class tests/test_AICaller.py Added multiple tests for `AICaller` class. Included tests for WANDB logging, API base, and system key handling.	+51/-0
test_PromptBuilder.py Add tests for rendering exceptions in `PromptBuilder` tests/test_PromptBuilder.py - Added tests to handle rendering exceptions in `PromptBuilder`.	+30/-0

Enhancement

increase_coverage.py

Add script for iterative coverage increase using Cover Agent

tests_integration/increase_coverage.py

Added script to iteratively run Cover Agent for multiple source and
test files.

Defined Args class to encapsulate arguments for Cover Agent.

+54/-0

Documentation

README.md

Document usage of `increase_coverage.py` script

tests_integration/README.md - Added documentation for running `increase_coverage.py` script.

+9/-1

💡 PR-Agent usage: Comment /help on the PR to get a list of all available PR-Agent tools and their descriptions

codiumai-pr-agent-pro[bot] commented 4 weeks ago

PR Review 🔍

⏱️ Estimated effort to review [1-5]	2, because the changes are well-structured and mostly involve adding new tests and a script for coverage improvement. The code modifications are straightforward and localized to specific functionalities.
🧪 Relevant tests	Yes
⚡ Possible issues	Possible Bug: In `test_current_date` of `test_app.py`, the test assumes the server's date is set to the current date, which might not always be true in different time zones or configurations.
⚡ Possible issues	Redundancy: The `test_current_date` function is defined twice in `test_app.py`, which seems like an accidental duplication.
🔒 Security concerns	No

codiumai-pr-agent-pro[bot] commented 4 weeks ago

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Category	Suggestion	Score
Maintainability	Remove the redundant definition of the `test_current_date` function ___ The `test_current_date` function is defined twice. Remove the first definition to avoid redundancy and potential confusion. [templated_tests/python_fastapi/test_app.py [12-16]](https://github.com/Codium-ai/cover-agent/pull/75/files#diff-474d2ef72228be13cfba725cbc72951c9dc719b9727c1c71a44ae20db4933fe7R12-R16) ```diff -def test_current_date(): - response = client.get("/current-date") - assert response.status_code == 200 - assert "date" in response.json() +# Removed redundant test_current_date definition ``` Suggestion importance[1-10]: 10 Why: The suggestion correctly identifies and resolves the redundancy of the `test_current_date` function being defined twice, which is crucial for maintainability and avoiding confusion in the test suite.	10
Maintainability	Combine the two test methods handling rendering exceptions into one to reduce redundancy ___ Combine the two test methods `test_build_prompt_custom_handles_rendering_exception` and `test_build_prompt_handles_rendering_exception` into one, as they are testing the same functionality with minor differences. [tests/test_PromptBuilder.py [142-169]](https://github.com/Codium-ai/cover-agent/pull/75/files#diff-c1b7d64d1e71e11e37e930a3a40dafe619a9d0221519da466579437b6b8567f5R142-R169) ```diff -def test_build_prompt_custom_handles_rendering_exception(self, monkeypatch): - def mock_render(args, kwargs): - raise Exception("Rendering error") - - monkeypatch.setattr("jinja2.Environment.from_string", lambda args, *kwargs: type('', (), {"render": mock_render})()) - - builder = PromptBuilder( - source_file_path="source_path", - test_file_path="test_path", - code_coverage_report="coverage_report", - ) - result = builder.build_prompt_custom("custom_file") - assert result == {"system": "", "user": ""} - def test_build_prompt_handles_rendering_exception(self, monkeypatch): def mock_render(args, *kwargs): raise Exception("Rendering error") monkeypatch.setattr("jinja2.Environment.from_string", lambda args, kwargs: type('', (), {"render": mock_render})()) builder = PromptBuilder( source_file_path="source_path", test_file_path="test_path", code_coverage_report="coverage_report", ) + result_custom = builder.build_prompt_custom("custom_file") result = builder.build_prompt() + assert result_custom == {"system": "", "user": ""} assert result == {"system": "", "user": ""} ``` Suggestion importance[1-10]: 6** Why: Combining similar test methods into one reduces redundancy and simplifies the test suite, although the impact on functionality is minimal, it aids in maintainability.	6
Robustness	Add exception handling to the `CoverAgent` instantiation and execution to handle errors gracefully ___ Add exception handling around the instantiation and running of `CoverAgent` to handle any potential errors gracefully. [tests_integration/increase_coverage.py [52-54]](https://github.com/Codium-ai/cover-agent/pull/75/files#diff-b829a406923d13f794e4bad1972c9508dd44dcb717f49ca8cc902180129a9fd4R52-R54) ```diff -args = Args(source_file, test_file) -agent = CoverAgent(args) -agent.run() +try: + args = Args(source_file, test_file) + agent = CoverAgent(args) + agent.run() +except Exception as e: + print(f"Error running CoverAgent for {source_file}: {e}") ``` Suggestion importance[1-10]: 8 Why: Implementing exception handling around the `CoverAgent` operations is crucial for robustness, especially to manage and log errors effectively during the execution of integration tests.	8
Best practice	Add an assertion to verify that `mock_builder` is called with the correct arguments ___ Add an assertion to check if `mock_builder` is called with the correct arguments to ensure the mock is being used as expected. [tests/test_AICaller.py [62-65]](https://github.com/Codium-ai/cover-agent/pull/75/files#diff-e84aeed71db4a60462435bc58814bc055ba7779343c529c6531763006007a961R62-R65) ```diff mock_builder.return_value = { "choices": [{"message": {"content": "response"}}], "usage": {"prompt_tokens": 2, "completion_tokens": 10} } +mock_builder.assert_called_once_with(prompt) ``` Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 Why: Adding an assertion for `mock_builder` call verification is a good practice to ensure that mocks are used as expected, enhancing the reliability of the tests.	7

EmbeddedDevops1 commented 4 weeks ago

ℹ️ No functional code changed. Only tests have been added.

Codium-ai / cover-agent