fix: update tests for hardware check module #1262
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces a new Docker Compose configuration file for a multi-container application, defining services for a web server and Certbot. Additionally, it enhances the Changes
Suggested reviewers
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
|
![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
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
Server/db/mongo/modules/hardwareCheckModule.js (2)
3-3: Yo, the error logging looks tight, but let's make it even better!The error logging implementation is solid, but consider structuring the error message to be more specific about what went wrong.
logger.error({ - message: "Monitor not found", + message: `Failed to create hardware check - Monitor ${monitorId} not found`, service: SERVICE_NAME, method: "createHardwareCheck", details: `monitor ID: ${monitorId}`, });Also applies to: 13-19
Line range hint
22-28: Mom's spaghetti moment: Let's document this complex calculation!The uptime percentage calculation looks mathematically correct, but future developers might need help understanding the formula.
+ // Calculate rolling average of uptime percentage: + // new_percentage = (old_percentage * (n-1) + current_status) / n + // where n is the total number of checks if (monitor.uptimePercentage === undefined) { monitor.uptimePercentage = status === true ? 1 : 0; } else { monitor.uptimePercentage = (monitor.uptimePercentage * (n - 1) + (status === true ? 1 : 0)) / n; }Server/tests/db/hardwareCheckModule.test.js (2)
47-52: The test setup is looking fresh, dawg!Good job setting up comprehensive mocks and stubs. The test infrastructure looks solid.
Consider moving the mock data to a separate test fixtures file to keep the test file cleaner:
+ // testFixtures.js + export const mockMonitor = { + _id: "123", + uptimePercentage: 1, + status: true, + save: () => this, + };Also applies to: 55-63
Line range hint
72-97: These tests are fire, but let's make that error handling more robust!The basic test cases look good, but the error handling test could be more specific.
it("should handle an error", async () => { - const err = new Error("test error"); + const err = new Error("Database connection failed"); + err.code = "MONGODB_ERROR"; monitorFindByIdStub.resolves(mockMonitor); hardwareCheckSaveStub.rejects(err); try { await createHardwareCheck({}); expect.fail("Should have thrown an error"); } catch (error) { expect(error).to.exist; expect(error).to.deep.equal(err); + expect(error.code).to.equal("MONGODB_ERROR"); + expect(error.service).to.equal("hardwareCheckModule"); } });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
Docker/test/cerbot-compose.yaml(1 hunks)Server/db/mongo/modules/hardwareCheckModule.js(2 hunks)Server/tests/db/hardwareCheckModule.test.js(4 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- Docker/test/cerbot-compose.yaml
Comment on lines
+98
to
+130
| it("should log an error if a monitor is not found", async () => { | ||
| monitorFindByIdStub.resolves(null); | ||
| const res = await createHardwareCheck({}); | ||
| expect(loggerStub.calledOnce).to.be.true; | ||
| expect(res).to.be.null; | ||
| }); | ||
| it("should handle a monitor with undefined uptimePercentage", async () => { | ||
| monitorFindByIdStub.resolves({ ...mockMonitor, uptimePercentage: undefined }); | ||
| hardwareCheckSaveStub.resolves(mockHardwareCheck); | ||
| hardwareCheckCountDocumentsStub.resolves(1); | ||
| const res = await createHardwareCheck({}); | ||
| expect(res).to.exist; | ||
| }); | ||
| it("should handle a monitor with undefined uptimePercentage and true status", async () => { | ||
| monitorFindByIdStub.resolves({ | ||
| ...mockMonitor, | ||
| uptimePercentage: undefined, | ||
| }); | ||
| hardwareCheckSaveStub.resolves(mockHardwareCheck); | ||
| hardwareCheckCountDocumentsStub.resolves(1); | ||
| const res = await createHardwareCheck({ status: true }); | ||
| expect(res).to.exist; | ||
| }); | ||
| it("should handle a monitor with undefined uptimePercentage and false status", async () => { | ||
| monitorFindByIdStub.resolves({ | ||
| ...mockMonitor, | ||
| uptimePercentage: undefined, | ||
| }); | ||
| hardwareCheckSaveStub.resolves(mockHardwareCheck); | ||
| hardwareCheckCountDocumentsStub.resolves(1); | ||
| const res = await createHardwareCheck({ status: false }); | ||
| expect(res).to.exist; | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Knees weak, arms heavy, but these edge case tests need more assertions!
While the edge cases are well-identified, we should add more specific assertions to verify the uptimePercentage calculations.
it("should handle a monitor with undefined uptimePercentage and true status", async () => {
monitorFindByIdStub.resolves({
...mockMonitor,
uptimePercentage: undefined,
});
hardwareCheckSaveStub.resolves(mockHardwareCheck);
hardwareCheckCountDocumentsStub.resolves(1);
const res = await createHardwareCheck({ status: true });
expect(res).to.exist;
+ expect(monitorFindByIdStub.firstCall.returnValue.uptimePercentage).to.equal(1);
});
it("should handle a monitor with undefined uptimePercentage and false status", async () => {
monitorFindByIdStub.resolves({
...mockMonitor,
uptimePercentage: undefined,
});
hardwareCheckSaveStub.resolves(mockHardwareCheck);
hardwareCheckCountDocumentsStub.resolves(1);
const res = await createHardwareCheck({ status: false });
expect(res).to.exist;
+ expect(monitorFindByIdStub.firstCall.returnValue.uptimePercentage).to.equal(0);
});Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
![llamapreview[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1023541?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Auto Pull Request Review from LlamaPReview
1. Overview
1.1 PR Summary
- Business value and requirements alignment: This PR updates tests for the hardware check module after changes were made to include uptime percentage. This ensures that the hardware check module's uptime percentage functionality is thoroughly tested, contributing to the overall reliability and accuracy of the monitoring tool.
- Key components modified: The tests for the hardware check module and the Docker configuration for testing.
- Impact assessment: The changes affect the testing infrastructure and the database module for hardware checks.
- System dependencies and integration impacts: The changes impact the logging and error handling mechanisms in the hardware check module, and the testing infrastructure ensures that the environment is set up correctly for running tests.
1.2 Architecture Changes
- System design modifications: The addition of uptime percentage calculations in the hardware check module.
- Component interactions: The hardware check module now interacts with the logger for error handling and the monitor model for uptime percentage updates.
- Integration points: The tests for the hardware check module have been updated to reflect the new functionality.
2. Detailed Technical Analysis
2.1 Code Logic Deep-Dive
Core Logic Changes
-
[File Path] - Server/db/mongo/modules/hardwareCheckModule.js
- [Function/Class Name] - createHardwareCheck
- Submitted PR Code:
import HardwareCheck from "../../models/HardwareCheck.js"; import Monitor from "../../models/Monitor.js"; +import logger from "../../../utils/logger.js"; const SERVICE_NAME = "hardwareCheckModule"; const createHardwareCheck = async (hardwareCheckData) => { try { const { monitorId, status } = hardwareCheckData; const n = (await HardwareCheck.countDocuments({ monitorId })) + 1; const monitor = await Monitor.findById(monitorId); if (!monitor) { logger.error({ message: "Monitor not found", service: SERVICE_NAME, method: "createHardwareCheck", details: `monitor ID: ${monitorId}`, }); + return null; } if (monitor.uptimePercentage === undefined) { monitor.uptimePercentage = status === true ? 1 : 0; } else { monitor.uptimePercentage = (monitor.uptimePercentage * (n - 1) + (status === true ? 1 : 0)) / n; } await monitor.save(); const hardwareCheck = await new HardwareCheck({
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: The current logic includes logging for cases where a monitor is not found, which is a good practice. However, it does not handle other potential errors, such as database connection issues or failures in saving the monitor or hardware check. This could lead to silent failures where the system does not alert the user or take corrective actions.
- Edge cases and error handling: The code does not handle scenarios where the database operations fail. For example, if
Monitor.findByIdorHardwareCheck.countDocumentsfails, the error is not caught, and the function will throw an unhandled promise rejection. Similarly, ifmonitor.save()ornew HardwareCheck().save()fails, the error is not handled. - Cross-component impact : This change impacts the logging and error handling mechanisms in the hardware check module. Proper error handling is crucial for maintaining the system's reliability and ensuring that issues are quickly identified and resolved.
- Business logic considerations : Ensuring that errors are logged appropriately is crucial for debugging and maintaining the system's reliability. Proper error handling also ensures that the system can recover from failures and maintain a positive user experience.
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
import HardwareCheck from "../../models/HardwareCheck.js"; import Monitor from "../../models/Monitor.js"; import logger from "../../../utils/logger.js"; const SERVICE_NAME = "hardwareCheckModule"; const createHardwareCheck = async (hardwareCheckData) => { try { const { monitorId, status } = hardwareCheckData; let n; try { n = (await HardwareCheck.countDocuments({ monitorId })) + 1; } catch (error) { logger.error({ message: "Failed to count hardware check documents", service: SERVICE_NAME, method: "createHardwareCheck", details: `monitor ID: ${monitorId}, error: ${error.message}`, }); return null; } let monitor; try { monitor = await Monitor.findById(monitorId); } catch (error) { logger.error({ message: "Failed to find monitor by ID", service: SERVICE_NAME, method: "createHardwareCheck", details: `monitor ID: ${monitorId}, error: ${error.message}`, }); return null; } if (!monitor) { logger.error({ message: "Monitor not found", service: SERVICE_NAME, method: "createHardwareCheck", details: `monitor ID: ${monitorId}`, }); return null; } if (monitor.uptimePercentage === undefined) { monitor.uptimePercentage = status === true ? 1 : 0; } else { monitor.uptimePercentage = (monitor.uptimePercentage * (n - 1) + (status === true ? 1 : 0)) / n; } try { await monitor.save(); } catch (error) { logger.error({ message: "Failed to save monitor", service: SERVICE_NAME, method: "createHardwareCheck", details: `monitor ID: ${monitorId}, error: ${error.message}`, }); return null; } const hardwareCheck = new HardwareCheck({ monitorId, status, // other fields }); try { await hardwareCheck.save(); } catch (error) { logger.error({ message: "Failed to save hardware check", service: SERVICE_NAME, method: "createHardwareCheck", details: `monitor ID: ${monitorId}, error: ${error.message}`, }); return null; } return hardwareCheck; } catch (error) { logger.error({ message: "Unexpected error in createHardwareCheck", service: SERVICE_NAME, method: "createHardwareCheck", details: `error: ${error.message}`, }); return null; } };
- Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits: Adding comprehensive error handling ensures that the system can recover from failures and maintain reliability. It also helps in identifying and debugging issues more effectively.
- Business value: Proper error handling enhances the system's robustness and ensures a positive user experience by minimizing downtime and data inconsistencies.
- Risk assessment: The risk of data inconsistencies and system failures due to unhandled errors is mitigated, leading to a more reliable and maintainable system.
- Submitted PR Code:
- [Function/Class Name] - createHardwareCheck
-
[File Path] - Server/tests/db/hardwareCheckModule.test.js
- [Function/Class Name] - createHardwareCheck tests
- Submitted PR Code:
+ it("should handle a monitor with undefined uptimePercentage and true status", async () => { + monitorFindByIdStub.resolves({ + ...mockMonitor, + uptimePercentage: undefined, + }); + hardwareCheckSaveStub.resolves(mockHardwareCheck); + hardwareCheckCountDocumentsStub.resolves(1); + const res = await createHardwareCheck({ status: true }); + expect(res).to.exist; + }); + it("should handle a monitor with undefined uptimePercentage and false status", async () => { + monitorFindByIdStub.resolves({ + ...mockMonitor, + uptimePercentage: undefined, + }); + hardwareCheckSaveStub.resolves(mockHardwareCheck); + hardwareCheckCountDocumentsStub.resolves(1); + const res = await createHardwareCheck({ status: false }); + expect(res).to.exist; + });
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: The tests cover scenarios where the monitor's
uptimePercentageis undefined and the status is either true or false. However, they do not cover scenarios where the database operations fail or where thehardwareCheckDatais invalid. - Edge cases and error handling: The tests should include cases where the database operations fail, such as
Monitor.findById,HardwareCheck.countDocuments, or saving the monitor or hardware check. Additionally, tests should cover scenarios where thehardwareCheckDatais invalid, such as missingmonitorIdorstatus. - Cross-component impact : Comprehensive tests ensure that the hardware check module is robust and can handle various edge cases and errors. This is crucial for maintaining the system's reliability and ensuring that issues are quickly identified and resolved.
- Business logic considerations : Ensuring that the hardware check module is thoroughly tested is crucial for maintaining the system's reliability and accuracy. Comprehensive tests help in identifying and fixing issues before they impact the users.
- Current logic and potential issues: The tests cover scenarios where the monitor's
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
it("should handle database operation failures", async () => { hardwareCheckCountDocumentsStub.rejects(new Error("Database error")); const res = await createHardwareCheck({ monitorId: "123", status: true }); expect(res).to.be.null; expect(loggerStub.calledOnce).to.be.true; }); it("should handle invalid hardwareCheckData", async () => { const res = await createHardwareCheck({}); expect(res).to.be.null; expect(loggerStub.calledOnce).to.be.true; }); it("should handle monitor save failure", async () => { monitorFindByIdStub.resolves(mockMonitor); hardwareCheckCountDocumentsStub.resolves(1); monitorSaveStub.rejects(new Error("Save error")); const res = await createHardwareCheck({ monitorId: "123", status: true }); expect(res).to.be.null; expect(loggerStub.calledOnce).to.be.true; }); it("should handle hardware check save failure", async () => { monitorFindByIdStub.resolves(mockMonitor); hardwareCheckCountDocumentsStub.resolves(1); hardwareCheckSaveStub.rejects(new Error("Save error")); const res = await createHardwareCheck({ monitorId: "123", status: true }); expect(res).to.be.null; expect(loggerStub.calledOnce).to.be.true; });
- Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits: Adding comprehensive tests ensures that the hardware check module can handle various edge cases and errors, enhancing the system's robustness and reliability.
- Business value: Thorough testing helps in identifying and fixing issues before they impact the users, ensuring a positive user experience and maintaining the system's accuracy.
- Risk assessment: The risk of unhandled errors and edge cases is mitigated, leading to a more reliable and maintainable system.
- Submitted PR Code:
- [Function/Class Name] - createHardwareCheck tests
2.2 Implementation Quality
- Code organization and structure: The code is well-organized, with clear separation of concerns between the hardware check module and the logger.
- Design patterns usage: The code follows a service-based architecture, with the hardware check module handling specific business logic.
- Error handling approach: The code includes error handling for cases where a monitor is not found but lacks handling for other potential errors.
- Resource management: The code efficiently utilizes resources, with minimal database operations and logical calculations.
3. Critical Findings
3.1 Potential Issues
-
🔴 Critical Issues
- Issue: The code does not handle scenarios where the database operations fail, which could lead to data inconsistencies and system failures.
- Impact:
- Technical implications: Potential data loss or corruption due to failed database operations.
- Business consequences: Decreased system reliability and user trust.
- User experience effects: Users may experience downtime or inaccurate data.
- Recommendation: Add error handling for database operations and implement retry mechanisms.
-
🟡 Warnings
- Warning: The Docker Compose file lacks error handling and logging mechanisms, which could lead to difficulties in diagnosing issues during testing.
- Potential risks: Increased time and effort required to diagnose and fix issues.
- Suggested improvements: Add error handling and logging mechanisms to the Docker Compose file.
3.2 Code Quality Concerns
- Maintainability aspects: The code is maintainable, with clear and concise functions and well-defined responsibilities.
- Readability issues: The code is generally readable, but adding more comprehensive error handling and logging would enhance clarity.
- Performance bottlenecks: There are no apparent bottlenecks in the code, but further performance testing may be required to identify any potential issues.
4. Security Assessment
- Authentication/Authorization impacts: No significant changes impacting authentication or authorization.
- Data handling concerns: Ensure that error messages do not expose sensitive information.
- Input validation: Validate
hardwareCheckDatato ensure it contains validmonitorIdandstatus. - Security best practices: Follow best practices for error handling and logging to avoid exposing sensitive information.
- Potential security risks: Ensure that error messages do not expose sensitive information.
- Mitigation strategies: Implement comprehensive error handling and logging mechanisms.
- Security testing requirements: Conduct thorough security testing to ensure that the system is robust and secure.
5. Testing Strategy
5.1 Test Coverage
- Unit test analysis: The PR includes unit tests for the hardware check module, covering various scenarios and edge cases.
- Integration test requirements: The PR does not include integration tests, but they should be considered to ensure that the changes do not introduce any issues in the overall system.
- Edge cases coverage: The PR includes tests for edge cases related to monitor not found scenarios but lacks tests for other potential errors.
5.2 Test Recommendations
Suggested Test Cases
it("should handle database operation failures", async () => {
hardwareCheckCountDocumentsStub.rejects(new Error("Database error"));
const res = await createHardwareCheck({ monitorId: "123", status: true });
expect(res).to.be.null;
expect(loggerStub.calledOnce).to.be.true;
});
it("should handle invalid hardwareCheckData", async () => {
const res = await createHardwareCheck({});
expect(res).to.be.null;
expect(loggerStub.calledOnce).to.be.true;
});
it("should handle monitor save failure", async () => {
monitorFindByIdStub.resolves(mockMonitor);
hardwareCheckCountDocumentsStub.resolves(1);
monitorSaveStub.rejects(new Error("Save error"));
const res = await createHardwareCheck({ monitorId: "123", status: true });
expect(res).to.be.null;
expect(loggerStub.calledOnce).to.be.true;
});
it("should handle hardware check save failure", async () => {
monitorFindByIdStub.resolves(mockMonitor);
hardwareCheckCountDocumentsStub.resolves(1);
hardwareCheckSaveStub.rejects(new Error("Save error"));
const res = await createHardwareCheck({ monitorId: "123", status: true });
expect(res).to.be.null;
expect(loggerStub.calledOnce).to.be.true;
});- Coverage improvements: Ensure that all edge cases and error scenarios are covered in the tests.
- Performance testing needs: Conduct performance testing to ensure that the changes do not introduce any performance bottlenecks.
6. Documentation & Maintenance
- Documentation updates needed: Update the documentation to reflect the changes made in this PR, including the addition of uptime percentage calculations and comprehensive error handling.
- Long-term maintenance considerations: Ensure that the system is maintainable by adding comprehensive error handling and logging mechanisms.
- Technical debt and monitoring requirements: Monitor the system for any potential issues and address technical debt by continuously improving the codebase.
7. Deployment & Operations
- Deployment impact and strategy: Ensure that the deployment process includes thorough testing to catch any potential issues early.
- Key operational considerations: Monitor the system for any issues related to uptime percentage calculations and error handling.
8. Summary & Recommendations
8.1 Key Action Items
- Critical changes required: Add error handling for database operations and implement retry mechanisms.
- Important improvements suggested: Add error handling and logging mechanisms to the Docker Compose file.
- Best practices to implement: Ensure comprehensive error handling and logging throughout the codebase.
- Cross-cutting concerns to address: Ensure that all edge cases and error scenarios are covered in the tests.
8.2 Future Considerations
- Technical evolution path: Continuously improve the codebase by adding comprehensive error handling and logging mechanisms.
- Business capability evolution: Ensure that the system is robust and reliable by thoroughly testing all changes.
- System integration impacts: Ensure that the changes do not introduce any issues in the overall system by conducting thorough integration testing.
💡 LlamaPReview Community
Have feedback on this AI Code review tool? Join our GitHub Discussions to share your thoughts and help shape the future of LlamaPReview.
2 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR updates tests for the hardware check module after changes were made to include uptime percentage.