Fix test coverage regression by updating import paths and test files #11
Conversation
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hello @ipv1337, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
Summary of Changes
This pull request addresses a regression in code coverage. I've updated import statements in test files to use direct imports from src.cli_code instead of relative imports, ensuring proper coverage tracking. I've also updated test scripts to use improved test files located in the test_dir/improved directory and added tests for the BaseTool class. Additionally, I've fixed failing assertions in the Gemini model tests. The overall tools coverage has increased to 95.26%.
Highlights
- Coverage Regression Fix: The primary goal is to fix a code coverage regression by updating import paths in test files.
- Import Statement Updates: Import statements in test files are updated to use direct imports from
src.cli_codeto ensure accurate coverage tracking. - Test Script Improvements: Test scripts are updated to use improved test files from the
test_dir/improveddirectory. - BaseTool Coverage: Added tests for the
BaseToolclass to improve its coverage. - Gemini Model Test Fixes: Failing assertions in the Gemini model tests have been fixed.
Changelog
Click here to see the changelog
- scripts/run_coverage_ci.sh
- Added
tests/tools/test_base_tool.pyto the list of tool tests to be run during CI coverage checks. Line 107
- Added
- scripts/test_coverage_local.sh
- Added
tests/tools/test_base_tool.pyto the list of tool tests to be run during local coverage checks. Line 74
- Added
- scripts/tools_coverage.sh
- Updated the test paths for quality_tools, summarizer_tool, and tree_tool to use the improved versions in
test_dir/improved. Lines 29, 33, 37 - Added
tests/tools/test_base_tool.pyto the pytest command for base tool coverage. Line 45
- Updated the test paths for quality_tools, summarizer_tool, and tree_tool to use the improved versions in
- test_dir/test_gemini_model_coverage.py
- Updated assertion in
test_generate_with_empty_candidatesto check for 'Error: Empty response received from LLM' instead of '(Agent received response with no candidates)'. Line 145 - Modified
test_generate_with_missing_toolto assert that the result contains 'nonexistent_tool' and 'not available' or 'not found' instead of checking for a specific console print. Lines 212-213 - Modified
test_generate_with_tool_execution_errorto assert that the result contains 'Error' and 'Tool execution failed' instead of checking for a specific console print. Lines 242-243
- Updated assertion in
- test_dir/test_quality_tools.py
- Added a direct import statement for
src.cli_code.tools.quality_toolsto improve coverage tracking. Line 10
- Added a direct import statement for
- test_dir/test_summarizer_tool.py
- Added a direct import statement for
src.cli_code.tools.summarizer_toolto improve coverage tracking. Line 10
- Added a direct import statement for
- test_dir/test_tree_tool.py
- Added a direct import statement for
src.cli_code.tools.tree_toolto improve coverage tracking. Line 12
- Added a direct import statement for
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
In realms of code, where tests reside,
Coverage gaps, we cannot hide.
With imports aligned, and tools in place,
We banish shadows, with testing's grace.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This PR aims to fix a code coverage regression by updating import statements, test files, and fixing assertions. The changes seem well-organized and address the identified issues effectively. The increase in test coverage is a positive outcome.
Summary of Findings
- Test Assertion Message: The test assertion message in
test_gemini_model_coverage.pycould be improved to provide more context about the expected behavior. - Redundant Mocking: In
test_gemini_model_coverage.py, the mocking ofself.mock_console.printis replaced with direct assertion on the result string. While this simplifies the test, it might be beneficial to retain the mock to verify that the console print is actually called under certain error conditions.
Merge Readiness
The pull request improves test coverage and fixes failing assertions, making it a valuable contribution. However, addressing the medium severity comment regarding the test assertion message would further enhance the code quality. I am unable to approve this pull request, and other reviewers should review and approve this code before merging. I recommend addressing the medium severity comment before merging.
| result = self.model.generate("Hello") | ||
|
|
||
| assert "(Agent received response with no candidates)" in result | ||
| assert "Error: Empty response received from LLM" in result |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider adding more context to the assertion message to indicate what the expected behavior is when an empty response is received from the LLM. This will help in debugging if the test fails in the future.
assert "Error: Empty response received from LLM" in result, "Should return an error message when LLM provides an empty response"| # Just check that the result contains the error indication | ||
| assert "nonexistent_tool" in result | ||
| assert "not available" in result.lower() or "not found" in result.lower() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The original code used self.mock_console.print.assert_any_call to verify that the error message was printed to the console. The updated code directly asserts that the error message is present in the result string. While this simplifies the test, it might be beneficial to retain the mock to verify that the console print is actually called under certain error conditions. If the intention is to only check the final result, this change is acceptable.
Code Coverage Report📊 Current Coverage: 85.00% Detailed coverage analysis is available in SonarCloud Coverage Change DetailsThis shows code coverage for changes in this PR. To improve coverage, consider adding tests for new or modified code. |
|
Overview
This PR fixes the code coverage regression by updating the import statements in test files and using improved test versions.
Changes
src.cli_codeinstead ofcli_codeto ensure proper coverage trackingtest_dir/improveddirectoryTest Results
Why It's Needed
The code coverage had regressed due to import paths not being correctly set for coverage tracking. These changes restore and improve the coverage levels while ensuring all tests pass reliably.
Fixes the coverage regression issues previously identified.