search

digdir / dialogporten

Dialogporten - common API and and metadata state store for digital dialogs
https://docs.altinn.studio/dialogporten
MIT License
1 stars 3 forks source link

chore(graphql): Test against correct search content object type #1419

Closed oskogstad closed 2 weeks ago

oskogstad commented 2 weeks ago

Summary by CodeRabbit

coderabbitai[bot] commented 2 weeks ago
📝 Walkthrough ## Walkthrough The changes in this pull request focus on the `ContentTypeTests` class located in the `tests/Digdir.Domain.Dialogporten.GraphQl.Unit.Tests/ObjectTypes/ContentTypeTests.cs` file. The modifications include updates to the namespaces and a type reference alteration in the `OutPutInList_DialogContentType_Names_Should_Match_Props_On_SearchContent` method, changing the reference from `ContentDto` to `SearchContent`. These updates reflect changes in the data structure being tested. ## Changes | File | Change Summary | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | tests/Digdir.Domain.Dialogporten.GraphQl.Unit.Tests/ObjectTypes/ContentTypeTests.cs | Updated namespaces and changed type reference from `ContentDto` to `SearchContent` in a test method. |
📜 Recent review details **Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml** **Review profile: CHILL**
📥 Commits Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a1be7c663618d3472115208d60af6c2473b62d3e and ca389a421c7fe691f4c05084a450b1b38bc05ba2.
📒 Files selected for processing (1) * `tests/Digdir.Domain.Dialogporten.GraphQl.Unit.Tests/ObjectTypes/ContentTypeTests.cs` (2 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
tests/Digdir.Domain.Dialogporten.GraphQl.Unit.Tests/ObjectTypes/ContentTypeTests.cs (2) `1-4`: **LGTM! Clean namespace organization.** The namespace changes properly reflect the architectural organization, moving from the Application layer to the GraphQL layer. This aligns well with testing the GraphQL-specific content types. --- `38-41`: **LGTM! Correct type reference update.** The change from `ContentDto` to `SearchContent` properly aligns the test with its intended purpose of validating search content properties. This matches the PR objective to test against the correct search content object type. Let's verify the property structure of both types to ensure we haven't lost any validation coverage:
✅ Verification successful **SearchContent type has additional properties compared to ContentDto** The verification reveals that `SearchContent` type includes two additional properties (`SenderName` and `ExtendedStatus`) that are not present in any of the `ContentDto` variants. This actually improves the test coverage by validating these search-specific fields. - `SearchContent` properties: - Title (ContentValue) - Summary (ContentValue) - SenderName (ContentValue?) - ExtendedStatus (ContentValue?) - `ContentDto` properties: - Title (ContentValueDto) - Summary (ContentValueDto)
🏁 Scripts executed The following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Description: Compare property structures between old and new types # to verify we're not missing any important validations # Search for both old and new type definitions echo "Searching for type definitions..." rg -A 10 "class (ContentDto|SearchContent)" ``` Length of output: 16494

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 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](https://coderabbit.ai/docs) for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit. - Join our [Discord Community](http://discord.gg/coderabbit) to get help, request features, and share feedback. - Follow us on [X/Twitter](https://twitter.com/coderabbitai) for updates and announcements.
sonarcloud[bot] commented 2 weeks 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