[ISSUE #1321]🧪Add unit test for OperationResult #1322
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces a new test module for the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
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
Documentation and Community
|
|
🔊@shadowsoy 🚀Thanks for your contribution 🎉. CodeRabbit(AI) will review your code first 🔥 |
rocketmq-rust-bot
added
AI review first
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
rocketmq-broker/src/transaction/operation_result.rs (1)
45-51: Consider adding custom messages to assertionsWhile the test is correct, adding descriptive messages to assertions would make test failures more informative.
- assert!(result.prepare_message.is_none()); - assert!(result.response_remark.is_none()); - assert_eq!(result.response_code, ResponseCode::Success); + assert!(result.prepare_message.is_none(), "prepare_message should be None by default"); + assert!(result.response_remark.is_none(), "response_remark should be None by default"); + assert_eq!(result.response_code, ResponseCode::Success, "response_code should be Success by default");
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
rocketmq-broker/src/transaction/operation_result.rs(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
rocketmq-broker/src/transaction/operation_result.rs (1)
38-43: LGTM! Test module setup follows Rust conventions.
The test module is correctly configured with proper imports and module organization.
| #[test] | ||
| fn operation_result_with_none_fields() { | ||
| let result = OperationResult { | ||
| prepare_message: None, | ||
| response_remark: None, | ||
| response_code: ResponseCode::Success, | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| assert!(result.prepare_message.is_none()); | ||
| assert!(result.response_remark.is_none()); | ||
| assert_eq!(result.response_code, ResponseCode::Success); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider removing redundant test
This test appears to be redundant with default_operation_result_has_none_fields as it tests the same scenario. Consider either:
- Removing this test entirely, or
- Modifying it to test a different scenario (e.g., transitioning from Some to None values)
If you choose option 2, here's a suggested replacement:
#[test]
fn operation_result_can_transition_to_none() {
// Start with Some values
let result = OperationResult {
prepare_message: Some(MessageExt::default()),
response_remark: Some("initial".to_string()),
response_code: ResponseCode::Success,
};
// Transition to None
let result = OperationResult {
prepare_message: None,
response_remark: None,
..result
};
assert!(result.prepare_message.is_none(), "prepare_message should transition to None");
assert!(result.response_remark.is_none(), "response_remark should transition to None");
}| #[cfg(test)] | ||
| mod tests { | ||
| use rocketmq_common::common::message::message_ext::MessageExt; | ||
| use rocketmq_remoting::code::response_code::ResponseCode; | ||
|
|
||
| use super::*; | ||
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn default_operation_result_has_none_fields() { | ||
| let result = OperationResult::default(); | ||
| assert!(result.prepare_message.is_none()); | ||
| assert!(result.response_remark.is_none()); | ||
| assert_eq!(result.response_code, ResponseCode::Success); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn operation_result_with_some_fields() { | ||
| let message = MessageExt::default(); | ||
| let remark = Some(String::from("Test remark")); | ||
| let response_code = ResponseCode::SystemError; | ||
|
|
||
| let result = OperationResult { | ||
| prepare_message: Some(message.clone()), | ||
| response_remark: remark.clone(), | ||
| response_code, | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| assert_eq!(result.response_remark, remark); | ||
| assert_eq!(result.response_code, response_code); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn operation_result_with_none_fields() { | ||
| let result = OperationResult { | ||
| prepare_message: None, | ||
| response_remark: None, | ||
| response_code: ResponseCode::Success, | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| assert!(result.prepare_message.is_none()); | ||
| assert!(result.response_remark.is_none()); | ||
| assert_eq!(result.response_code, ResponseCode::Success); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Additional test scenarios needed for comprehensive coverage
Consider adding tests for the following scenarios:
- Response codes other than Success/SystemError
- Response remarks with special characters or empty strings
- Complex MessageExt instances
- Boundary conditions and edge cases
Would you like me to provide example implementations for these additional test cases?
| #[test] | ||
| fn operation_result_with_some_fields() { | ||
| let message = MessageExt::default(); | ||
| let remark = Some(String::from("Test remark")); | ||
| let response_code = ResponseCode::SystemError; | ||
|
|
||
| let result = OperationResult { | ||
| prepare_message: Some(message.clone()), | ||
| response_remark: remark.clone(), | ||
| response_code, | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| assert_eq!(result.response_remark, remark); | ||
| assert_eq!(result.response_code, response_code); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Test coverage and efficiency improvements needed
There are several issues to address:
- The
prepare_messagefield is not being asserted after initialization - Unnecessary
clone()calls can be removed
#[test]
fn operation_result_with_some_fields() {
let message = MessageExt::default();
let remark = Some(String::from("Test remark"));
let response_code = ResponseCode::SystemError;
let result = OperationResult {
- prepare_message: Some(message.clone()),
- response_remark: remark.clone(),
+ prepare_message: Some(message),
+ response_remark: remark,
response_code,
};
+ assert!(result.prepare_message.is_some(), "prepare_message should be Some");
assert_eq!(result.response_remark, remark);
assert_eq!(result.response_code, response_code);
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1322 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 19.82% 19.88% +0.05%
==========================================
Files 434 434
Lines 54530 54561 +31
==========================================
+ Hits 10810 10848 +38
+ Misses 43720 43713 -7 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Which Issue(s) This PR Fixes(Closes)
Fixes #1321
Brief Description
How Did You Test This Change?
Summary by CodeRabbit
OperationResultstruct.OperationResult.