GuilhermeStracini / cqrs-boilerplate-dotnet

💡 🏗️ A boilerplate CQRS (API + Worker) template for .NET
https://guilhermestracini.github.io/cqrs-boilerplate-dotnet/
MIT License
5 stars 1 forks source link

Add integration tests with Xunit and FluentAssertions #120

Closed guibranco closed 2 months ago

guibranco commented 2 months ago

User description

[!NOTE] I'm currently writing a description for your pull request. I should be done shortly (<1 minute). Please don't edit the description field until I'm finished, or we may overwrite each other. If I find nothing to write about, I'll delete this message.


Description


Changes walkthrough 📝

Relevant files
Tests
GlobalUsings.cs
Add GlobalUsings for Xunit                                                             

Tests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests/GlobalUsings.cs - Added global using directive for Xunit.
+1/-0     
UnitTest1.cs
Implement UnitTest1 with a sample test                                     

Tests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests/UnitTest1.cs
  • Created a new test class UnitTest1.
  • Implemented a test method Test1 that asserts a string.
  • +24/-0   
    Configuration changes
    SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests.csproj
    Create test project file with dependencies                             

    Tests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests.csproj
  • Created a new test project file.
  • Added dependencies for testing frameworks and coverlet.
  • +24/-0   

    Summary by Sourcery

    Introduce a new unit test class UnitTest1 with a simple test method to verify string equality using FluentAssertions and set up global using directives for xUnit.

    Tests:

    Summary by CodeRabbit

    semanticdiff-com[bot] commented 2 months ago

    Review changes with SemanticDiff.

    korbit-ai[bot] commented 2 months ago

    You've used up your 5 PR reviews for this month under the Korbit Starter Plan. You'll get 5 more reviews on October 5th, 2024 or you can upgrade to Pro for unlimited PR reviews and enhanced features in your Korbit Console.

    senior-dev-bot[bot] commented 2 months ago

    Hi there! :wave: Thanks for opening a PR. It looks like you've already reached the 5 review limit on our Basic Plan for the week. If you still want a review, feel free to upgrade your subscription in the Web App and then reopen the PR

    pr-code-reviewer[bot] commented 2 months ago

    :wave: Hi there!

    1. Ensure consistency in package references by using the same quotation marks for all packages (e.g., double quotes).
    2. Consider adding missing closing tags for elements opened in the .csproj file, like the <Project> and <PackageReference> tags.
    3. Check for any potential truncation issues in the last line of PackageReference Include="xunit.runner.visualstudio"> due to text cutoff.

    Automatically generated with the help of gpt-3.5-turbo. Feedback? Please don't hesitate to drop me an email at webber@takken.io.

    codara-ai-code-review[bot] commented 2 months ago

    Potential issues, bugs, and flaws that can introduce unwanted behavior:

    1. SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests/GlobalUsings.cs: No issues found.

    Code suggestions and improvements for better exception handling, logic, standardization, and consistency:

    1. SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests.csproj:

      • Consider providing a specific version for package references to ensure consistent build environments.
      • It's recommended to define an explicit version for each package reference to avoid unexpected updates.
    2. SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests/UnitTest1.cs:

      • In the UnitTest1 class, there is an extra semicolon ; at the end of the namespace declaration which should be removed.
      • It's a good practice to add meaningful comments for the Act section in the unit test method to clarify the action being tested.
    sourcery-ai[bot] commented 2 months ago

    Reviewer's Guide by Sourcery

    This pull request adds two new files to the project: a unit test file and a global usings file. The changes introduce a basic test structure using xUnit and FluentAssertions.

    File-Level Changes

    Change Details Files
    Added a new unit test class with a sample test method
    • Created a new class named UnitTest1
    • Implemented a test method named Test1
    • Used FluentAssertions for assertion
    • Added XML documentation comments for the class and method
    Tests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests/UnitTest1.cs
    Added global using statement for xUnit
    • Included a global using directive for Xunit
    Tests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests/GlobalUsings.cs

    Tips - Trigger a new Sourcery review by commenting `@sourcery-ai review` on the pull request. - Continue your discussion with Sourcery by replying directly to review comments. - You can change your review settings at any time by accessing your [dashboard](https://app.sourcery.ai): - Enable or disable the Sourcery-generated pull request summary or reviewer's guide; - Change the review language; - You can always [contact us](mailto:support@sourcery.ai) if you have any questions or feedback.
    coderabbitai[bot] commented 2 months ago

    Walkthrough

    The changes introduce a new global using directive for the Xunit testing framework, streamline the integration testing environment by adding a new project file, and establish a basic unit test class with a single test method. These updates enhance the organization of the testing framework and set the foundation for future test development.

    Changes

    File Change Summary
    Tests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests/GlobalUsings.cs Added a global using directive for Xunit.
    Tests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests.csproj Introduced a new project file for integration tests, configured with necessary package references.
    Tests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests/UnitTest1.cs Added a new unit test class UnitTest1 with a test method Test1 that validates a specific functionality.

    Sequence Diagram(s)

    sequenceDiagram
        participant TestRunner
        participant UnitTest1
    
        TestRunner->>UnitTest1: Execute Test1()
        UnitTest1->>UnitTest1: Arrange: Set expected value
        UnitTest1->>UnitTest1: Act: (currently empty)
        UnitTest1->>UnitTest1: Assert: Check expected value
        UnitTest1-->>TestRunner: Test Passed

    Poem

    🐰 In the land of code where bunnies hop,
    A test was born, it won't ever stop.
    With Xunit's help, it takes its flight,
    Ensuring our functions are working just right.
    So here’s to the tests, both big and small,
    In the garden of code, they’ll flourish for all! 🌼


    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 - [X](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=I%20just%20used%20%40coderabbitai%20for%20my%20code%20review%2C%20and%20it%27s%20fantastic%21%20It%27s%20free%20for%20OSS%20and%20offers%20a%20free%20trial%20for%20the%20proprietary%20code.%20Check%20it%20out%3A&url=https%3A//coderabbit.ai) - [Mastodon](https://mastodon.social/share?text=I%20just%20used%20%40coderabbitai%20for%20my%20code%20review%2C%20and%20it%27s%20fantastic%21%20It%27s%20free%20for%20OSS%20and%20offers%20a%20free%20trial%20for%20the%20proprietary%20code.%20Check%20it%20out%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fcoderabbit.ai) - [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/submit?title=Great%20tool%20for%20code%20review%20-%20CodeRabbit&text=I%20just%20used%20CodeRabbit%20for%20my%20code%20review%2C%20and%20it%27s%20fantastic%21%20It%27s%20free%20for%20OSS%20and%20offers%20a%20free%20trial%20for%20proprietary%20code.%20Check%20it%20out%3A%20https%3A//coderabbit.ai) - [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcoderabbit.ai&mini=true&title=Great%20tool%20for%20code%20review%20-%20CodeRabbit&summary=I%20just%20used%20CodeRabbit%20for%20my%20code%20review%2C%20and%20it%27s%20fantastic%21%20It%27s%20free%20for%20OSS%20and%20offers%20a%20free%20trial%20for%20proprietary%20code)
    Tips ### Chat There are 3 ways to chat with [CodeRabbit](https://coderabbit.ai): - Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example: -- `I pushed a fix in commit , 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 generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.` -- `@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. ### CodeRabbit Configuration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`) - You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a `.coderabbit.yaml` file to the root of your repository. - Please see the [configuration documentation](https://docs.coderabbit.ai/guides/configure-coderabbit) for more information. - If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: `# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json` ### Documentation and Community - Visit our [Documentation](https://coderabbit.ai/docs) for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit. - Join our [Discord Community](https://discord.com/invite/GsXnASn26c) to get help, request features, and share feedback. - Follow us on [X/Twitter](https://twitter.com/coderabbitai) for updates and announcements.
    instapr[bot] commented 2 months ago

    Feedback

    Overall, the changes look good! 👍

    gooroo-dev[bot] commented 2 months ago

    Please double check the following review of the pull request:

    Issues counts

    🐞Mistake 🤪Typo 🚨Security 🚀Performance 💪Best Practices 📖Readability ❓Others
    0 0 0 0 1 0 0

    Changes in the diff

    Identified Issues

    ID Type Details Severity Confidence
    1 💪Best Practices Namespace in UnitTest1.cs should match the folder structure for consistency. 🟡Low 🟡Low

    Issue 1: Namespace Consistency

    Explanation

    The namespace in UnitTest1.cs is SolutionName.Tests.UnitTests, but the file is located in Tests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests. The namespace should reflect the folder structure for better organization and consistency.

    Affected File

    Suggested Fix

    Update the namespace to match the folder structure.

    using FluentAssertions;
    
    namespace SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests;
    
    /// <summary>
    /// Class UnitTest1.
    /// </summary>
    public class UnitTest1
    {
        /// <summary>
        /// Defines the test method Test1.
        /// </summary>
        [Fact]
        public void Test1()
        {
            // Arrange
            var expected = "Hello World!";
    
            // Act
    
            // Assert
            expected.Should().Be("Hello World!");
        }
    }

    Explanation of Fix

    The namespace has been updated to SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests to match the folder structure, ensuring consistency and better organization.

    Missing Tests

    The provided code already includes a basic test method Test1. However, to ensure comprehensive testing, consider adding more test cases that cover different scenarios and edge cases. Here are a few suggestions:

    1. Test for Different Expected Values:

      [Fact]
      public void TestDifferentExpectedValue()
      {
         // Arrange
         var expected = "Goodbye World!";
      
         // Act
      
         // Assert
         expected.Should().Be("Goodbye World!");
      }
    2. Test for Null Values:

      [Fact]
      public void TestNullValue()
      {
         // Arrange
         string expected = null;
      
         // Act
      
         // Assert
         expected.Should().BeNull();
      }
    3. Test for Empty Strings:

      [Fact]
      public void TestEmptyString()
      {
         // Arrange
         var expected = string.Empty;
      
         // Act
      
         // Assert
         expected.Should().Be(string.Empty);
      }

    These additional tests will help ensure that the code behaves as expected under various conditions.

    Summon me to re-review when updated! Yours, Gooroo.dev I'd love to hear your feedback! React or reply.

    penify-dev[bot] commented 2 months ago

    PR Review 🔍

    ⏱️ Estimated effort to review [1-5] 2, because the changes are straightforward and primarily involve adding a new test project and a sample test case.
    🧪 Relevant tests Yes
    ⚡ Possible issues No
    🔒 Security concerns No
    penify-dev[bot] commented 2 months ago

    PR Code Suggestions ✨

    CategorySuggestion                                                                                                                                    Score
    Possible issue
    Include the action being tested in the test method ___ **The test method Test1 currently has an empty Act section; you should include the code that
    performs the action being tested.** [Tests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests/UnitTest1.cs [19]](https://github.com/GuilhermeStracini/cqrs-boilerplate-dotnet/pull/120/files#diff-17c6d3701e97a5a59ba4df23c16d196b73caf315c1a7b99bae532718cbf0d2bdR19-R19) ```diff // Act +var actual = "Hello World!"; // Example action ```
    Suggestion importance[1-10]: 8 Why: Including the action being tested is crucial for the test's functionality, as it ensures that the test actually verifies behavior rather than just asserting a static value.
    8
    Best practice
    Specify a version for the FluentAssertions package in the project file ___ **Consider specifying a version for the FluentAssertions package to ensure compatibility and
    avoid breaking changes in the future.** [Tests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests.csproj [15]](https://github.com/GuilhermeStracini/cqrs-boilerplate-dotnet/pull/120/files#diff-75f340a560538a8d5d2d5268006234c461a7261fbe766eb0914e684e2bea3945R15-R15) ```diff - + // Specify a version ```
    Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 Why: Specifying a version for dependencies is a good practice to prevent future compatibility issues, making this suggestion relevant and important for maintainability.
    7
    Explicitly define the target framework in the project file for clarity ___ **Ensure that the TargetFramework is explicitly defined (e.g., net6.0) instead of using a
    variable, to avoid confusion and ensure clarity.** [Tests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests.csproj [4]](https://github.com/GuilhermeStracini/cqrs-boilerplate-dotnet/pull/120/files#diff-75f340a560538a8d5d2d5268006234c461a7261fbe766eb0914e684e2bea3945R4-R4) ```diff -$(DotNetVersion) +net6.0 // Explicitly define the target framework ```
    Suggestion importance[1-10]: 5 Why: While explicitly defining the target framework can enhance clarity, using a variable can also be beneficial for flexibility across different environments; thus, this suggestion is more of a preference than a necessity.
    5
    Enhancement
    Enhance the test method with additional assertions for better coverage ___ **The test method Test1 should ideally include assertions for different scenarios to ensure
    robustness.** [Tests/SolutionName.Tests.Workers.IntegrationTests/UnitTest1.cs [22]](https://github.com/GuilhermeStracini/cqrs-boilerplate-dotnet/pull/120/files#diff-17c6d3701e97a5a59ba4df23c16d196b73caf315c1a7b99bae532718cbf0d2bdR22-R22) ```diff -expected.Should().Be("Hello World!"); +expected.Should().Be("Hello World!"); // Add more assertions for different scenarios ```
    Suggestion importance[1-10]: 6 Why: While adding more assertions can improve test coverage, the current test is functional as it stands; thus, this suggestion is beneficial but not critical.
    6
    github-actions[bot] commented 2 months ago

    Infisical secrets check: ✅ No secrets leaked!

    💻 Scan logs ```txt 11:42PM INF scanning for exposed secrets... 11:42PM INF 117 commits scanned. 11:42PM INF scan completed in 80.3ms 11:42PM INF no leaks found ```
    sonarcloud[bot] commented 2 months ago

    Quality Gate Passed Quality Gate passed

    Issues
    0 New issues
    0 Accepted issues

    Measures
    0 Security Hotspots
    0.0% Coverage on New Code
    0.0% Duplication on New Code

    See analysis details on SonarCloud