Created unittests for switchmap/dashboard/table/search.py #248
Conversation
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the WalkthroughA new test file Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Poem
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? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Our Pull Request Approval ProcessWe have these basic policies to make the approval process smoother for our volunteer team. Testing Your CodePlease make sure your code passes all tests. Our test code coverage system will fail if either of these two conditions occur:
The process helps maintain the overall reliability of the code base and is a prerequisite for getting your PR approved. Assigned reviewers regularly review the PR queue and tend to focus on PRs that are passing. ReviewersWhen your PR has been assigned reviewers contact them to get your code reviewed and approved via:
Reviewing Your CodeYour reviewer(s) will have the following roles:
🎯 Contacting the person who assigned the mentors is not advised unless they make a request. Do not @ the person who did the assignment otherwise. |
|
@coderobbitai can you please approve changes |
|
Okay @palisadoes i am doing it |
|
Okay @palisadoes sir i'll keep this in mind |
|
|
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
tests/switchmap_/dashboard/table/test_search.py (1)
7-8: Remove unused imports.The following imports are not used in the code:
flask_table.Tableunittest.mock.patch-from flask_table import Table -from unittest.mock import patch🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)
7-7:
flask_table.Tableimported but unusedRemove unused import:
flask_table.Table(F401)
8-8:
unittest.mock.patchimported but unusedRemove unused import:
unittest.mock.patch(F401)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
tests/switchmap_/dashboard/table/test_search.py(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)
tests/switchmap_/dashboard/table/test_search.py
7-7: flask_table.Table imported but unused
Remove unused import: flask_table.Table
(F401)
8-8: unittest.mock.patch imported but unused
Remove unused import: unittest.mock.patch
(F401)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
tests/switchmap_/dashboard/table/test_search.py (3)
36-46: LGTM! Edge cases are properly handled.The tests for empty and None data scenarios ensure robust error handling.
85-86: LGTM! Standard unittest main block.
48-82: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionImprove the test implementation for valid data.
Several improvements can be made to the test:
- Use
@patchdecorator for safer mocking- Use real table generation logic instead of string concatenation
- Consider testing additional scenarios (e.g., different interface statuses)
Here's how to improve the test:
- def test_interfaces_with_valid_data(self): - """Test interfaces method with valid data.""" - original_table_function = interfaces_.table - - def mock_table(data): - """Mock the table generation function. - Args: - data (dict): The data containing interface details. - Returns: - str: A string containing the generated HTML table. - """ - rows = "".join( - f"<tr><td>{iface['name']}</td><td>{iface['status']}</td></tr>" - for iface in data["interfaces"] - ) - return f"<table>{rows}</table>" - - interfaces_.table = mock_table - search_instance = search.Search(self.valid_data) - result = search_instance.interfaces() - interfaces_.table = original_table_function + @patch('switchmap.dashboard.table.interfaces_.table') + def test_interfaces_with_valid_data(self, mock_table): + """Test interfaces method with valid data.""" + # Setup mock to return a known value + expected_html = "<table>...</table>" # Replace with actual expected output + mock_table.return_value = expected_html + + search_instance = search.Search(self.valid_data) + result = search_instance.interfaces()Let's verify the test coverage:
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
unit test
Issue Number:
Fixes #207
Snapshots/Videos:
This is the passing test logs.
This is the test file code.
If relevant, did you update the documentation?
Summary
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Checklist
CodeRabbit AI Review
Test Coverage
Other information
Have you read the contributing guide?
Yes
Summary by CodeRabbit
Summary by CodeRabbit
Searchclass.Noneinput data.interfacesmethod functionality.