Fix test configuration to restore code coverage #19
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 the issue of missing code coverage in the main module. According to the description, the changes include updates to the pytest configuration, fixes to test assertions, enhancements to the mock console fixture, and fixes for error message handling. The goal is to restore code coverage, which has been achieved, bringing it up to 86%.
Highlights
- Test Configuration: The
pytest.inifile has been updated to include bothtestsandtest_diras test directories, ensuring all tests are discovered and run. - Mock Console Fixture: The
mock_consolefixture intests/test_main.pyhas been enhanced to support input mocking, allowing tests to simulate user input during interactive sessions. This was done by addingconsole_mock.input = mocker.MagicMock(). - Test Assertions: Numerous test assertions in
tests/test_main.pyhave been fixed and enhanced to accurately match the actual implementation and expected behavior of the CLI, including handling of different providers (Gemini, Ollama), model selection, configuration errors, and interactive session commands. - CLI Argument Handling: Added tests to verify the CLI's argument parsing and handling, including overriding configuration defaults with CLI flags, using configuration defaults when flags are not provided, and handling cases where no default model is configured.
- Interactive Session Testing: Expanded tests for the interactive session, covering scenarios such as exiting the session with
/exit, handling unknown commands, dealing withNoneresponses from the model, and handling exceptions during the session. - Configuration Error Handling: Added tests to ensure the CLI handles configuration errors gracefully, such as when the configuration file is missing or when credentials are not found.
- List Models Command: Added tests for the
list-modelscommand, covering scenarios such as successful model listing, empty model lists, unknown providers, and correct output formatting. - Setup Command: Added tests for the
setupcommand, including specific messages for Ollama and Gemini providers, and handling cases where the configuration cannot be loaded.
Changelog
- pytest.ini
- Updated
testpathsto include bothtestsandtest_dirto ensure all tests are run. Line 11 was changed fromtestpaths = test_dirtotestpaths = tests test_dir.
- Updated
- tests/test_main.py
- Enhanced
mock_consolefixture to support input mocking by addingconsole_mock.input = mocker.MagicMock(). This was added between lines 20 and 21. - Added numerous tests to cover various CLI functionalities, including argument parsing, interactive session handling, configuration errors, and command-specific behavior.
- Added tests for provider and model selection, including overriding config defaults with CLI flags. Tests were added starting on line 191.
- Added tests for handling different providers (Gemini, Ollama) and model initialization. Tests were added starting on line 270.
- Added tests for the
list-modelscommand, covering scenarios such as successful model listing, empty model lists, and unknown providers. Tests were added starting on line 364. - Added tests for the
setupcommand, including specific messages for Ollama and Gemini providers. Tests were added starting on line 338.
- Enhanced
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 tests we trust,
Coverage restored, no more rust.
Bugs flee in fright,
Code shines so bright,
Confidence so robust.
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 addresses a critical issue of restoring code coverage by fixing test configurations and assertions. The changes include updating pytest.ini to include both test directories, fixing test assertions, enhancing the mock_console fixture, and fixing assertions for error message handling. The overall quality of the tests is good, and the changes effectively restore code coverage.
Summary of Findings
- Missing assertions for provider and model parameters: The test
test_cli_invoke_interactivelacks assertions to verify that the provider and model parameters are correctly passed to thestart_interactive_sessionfunction. This could lead to undetected issues if these parameters are not being handled as expected. - Inconsistent error message assertions: Some tests assert the presence of specific error messages in
result.stdout, while others useresult.output. Consistency in assertion style would improve readability and maintainability. - Lack of specific exception type assertion: In
test_start_interactive_session_init_exception, the test asserts that an exception is raised during model initialization but does not assert the specific type of exception. Asserting the exception type would make the test more robust.
Merge Readiness
The pull request is almost ready for merging. However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed before merging. Specifically, the missing assertions for provider and model parameters in test_cli_invoke_interactive should be added to ensure that these parameters are being handled correctly. Additionally, the error message assertions should be made consistent, and the exception type should be asserted in test_start_interactive_session_init_exception. Once these issues are addressed, the pull request will be ready for merging. I am unable to approve this pull request, and users should have others review and approve this code before merging.
| # Check the result and verify start_interactive_session was called | ||
| assert result.exit_code == 0 | ||
| mock_start_session.assert_called_once() | ||
| mock_start_session.assert_called_once() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider adding assertions to verify that the provider and model parameters are correctly passed to the start_interactive_session function. This will ensure that these parameters are being handled as expected. For example, you could assert that mock_start_session.call_args.kwargs['provider'] and mock_start_session.call_args.kwargs['model_name'] have the expected values.
| """Test start_interactive_session when model init raises exception.""" | ||
| from src.cli_code.main import start_interactive_session | ||
| mock_gemini = mocker.patch("src.cli_code.main.GeminiModel") | ||
| mock_gemini.side_effect = Exception("Initialization failed") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider asserting the specific type of exception raised by using pytest.raises. This will make the test more robust and ensure that the correct type of exception is being raised.
| mock_gemini.side_effect = Exception("Initialization failed") | |
| with pytest.raises(Exception, match="Initialization failed"): | |
| start_interactive_session("gemini", "test-model", mock_console) |
Code Coverage Report📊 Current Coverage: 31.58% 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. |
|
This PR fixes the test configuration and test assertions to restore code coverage for the main module, increasing coverage from 0% to 86%. Key changes: Updated pytest.ini to include both test directories (tests and test_dir), fixed test assertions to match actual implementation, enhanced mock_console fixture to support input mocking, and fixed assertions for error message handling. All tests are now passing, and the main.py module has 86% coverage.