Fix test coverage regression by updating import paths and test files

[ipv1337]

Overview

This PR fixes the code coverage regression by updating the import statements in test files and using improved test versions.

Changes

• Updated import statements in test files to use direct imports from src.cli_code instead of cli_code to ensure proper coverage tracking
• Updated test scripts to use the improved test files from the test_dir/improved directory
• Added BaseTool tests in coverage scripts to improve coverage of the base tool class
• Fixed failing assertions in the Gemini model tests
• Updated tools coverage script to include all the necessary tool tests

Test Results

• Tools coverage increased to 95.26% overall
• Individual components show excellent coverage:
  • 100% coverage for directory_tools, quality_tools, task_complete_tool, and test_runner
  • 98.65% coverage for summarizer_tool
  • 96.70% coverage for tree_tool
  • 89.83% coverage for file_tools
  • 87.50% coverage for base tool class

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.

[gemini-code-assist]

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. Additionally, I've added tests for the BaseTool class and fixed failing assertions in the Gemini model tests. The overall tools coverage has increased to 95.26%.

Highlights

• Import Path Fix: Updated import statements in test files to use direct imports from src.cli_code to fix coverage tracking.
• Test Updates: Updated test scripts to use improved test files from the test_dir/improved directory.
• BaseTool Coverage: Added BaseTool tests to improve coverage of the base tool class.
• Gemini Model Tests: Fixed failing assertions in the Gemini model tests.
• Coverage Improvement: Increased overall tools coverage to 95.26%.

Changelog

Click here to see the changelog

• scripts/run_coverage_ci.sh
  • Added tests/tools/test_base_tool.py to the list of tools tests to be run.
• scripts/test_coverage_local.sh
  • Added tests/tools/test_base_tool.py to the list of tools tests to be run.
• scripts/tools_coverage.sh
  • Updated the test commands to use the improved test files in test_dir/improved for quality, summarizer, and tree tools.
  • Updated the test command for system tools to include test_dir/test_system_tools.py and specify the TestSystemTools class in test_dir/test_tools_basic.py.
  • Added tests/tools/test_base_tool.py to the test command for the base tool class.
• test_dir/test_gemini_model_coverage.py
  • Updated assertion in test_generate_with_empty_candidates to check for 'Error: Empty response received from LLM' instead of '(Agent received response with no candidates)'.
  • Modified assertions in test_generate_with_missing_tool and test_generate_with_tool_execution_error to check for specific error messages in the result instead of using mock_console.print.assert_any_call.
• test_dir/test_quality_tools.py
  • Added a direct import for src.cli_code.tools.quality_tools to improve coverage tracking.
• test_dir/test_summarizer_tool.py
  • Added a direct import for src.cli_code.tools.summarizer_tool to improve coverage tracking.
• test_dir/test_system_tools.py
  • Added os import.
  • Moved subprocess import below other imports.
  • Updated assertion in test_bash_tool_init to check if 'Execute a bash command' is in the description instead of an exact match.
  • Reduced the timeout value in test_bash_tool_timeout from 1000 to 1 (second).
• test_dir/test_tools_basic.py
  • Updated all imports to use src.cli_code.tools to fix import paths.
• test_dir/test_tree_tool.py
  • Added tempfile import.
  • Added a direct import for src.cli_code.tools.tree_tool to improve coverage tracking.

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.

---

Coverage regressions,
A software engineer's plight,
Tests bring back the light.

Footnotes

1. 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. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This PR aims to fix a code coverage regression by updating import paths, test files, and fixing assertions. The changes seem well-organized and address the identified issues effectively. The test results indicate a significant improvement in code coverage, which is a positive outcome. However, there are a few areas that could be improved for clarity and maintainability.

Summary of Findings

• Test Assertion Message: The test assertion message in test_gemini_model_coverage.py could be improved to provide more context about the expected behavior.
• Timeout Value Consistency: In test_system_tools.py, the timeout value in test_bash_tool_timeout is set to 1 second, while the comment indicates it should be 1000 milliseconds. This inconsistency should be addressed.
• Direct Imports for Coverage Tracking: The use of direct imports for coverage tracking in several test files is a good practice to ensure that the code is properly covered by tests.

Merge Readiness

The pull request improves code coverage and fixes failing assertions, which are crucial for maintaining code quality. However, addressing the identified issues, particularly the test assertion message and timeout value consistency, would further enhance the reliability and maintainability of the code. I am unable to directly approve this pull request, and recommend that others review and approve this code before merging. I recommend that the pull request not be merged until the high severity issue is addressed (at a minimum).

[gemini-code-assist]

The comment indicates a timeout of 1 second, but the original timeout value was 1000 milliseconds. The new timeout value is 1 second, so the comment should be updated to reflect this change.

Consider using milliseconds consistently throughout the codebase or using a named constant for clarity.

result = tool.execute("sleep 10", timeout=1)  # 1 second timeout

[gemini-code-assist]

Consider adding a more descriptive message to the assertion to clarify what specific error condition is being tested. This will help in debugging if the test fails in the future.

For example, instead of just checking for the presence of "nonexistent_tool", include the expected error message or a more specific indicator of the failure.

assert "Tool 'nonexistent_tool' is not available" in result

[github-actions]

Code Coverage Report

📊 Current Coverage: 85.00%

Detailed coverage analysis is available in SonarCloud

Coverage Change Details

This shows code coverage for changes in this PR. To improve coverage, consider adding tests for new or modified code.

[github-actions]

Code Coverage Report

📊 Current Coverage: 85.00%

Detailed coverage analysis is available in SonarCloud

Coverage Change Details

This shows code coverage for changes in this PR. To improve coverage, consider adding tests for new or modified code.

[sonarqubecloud]

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 SonarQube Cloud