Add missing test cases for pagespeed and hardware monitor types #1124
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
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces enhancements to the test suite for the Changes
Possibly related PRs
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 (1)
Server/tests/db/monitorModule.test.js (1)
150-194: Consider adding edge cases for pagespeed type monitor.While the happy path test case is well implemented, consider adding the following scenarios:
- Test with empty check results
- Test with invalid pagespeed scores
- Test with different time periods
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Server/tests/db/monitorModule.test.js(4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
Server/tests/db/monitorModule.test.js (1)
4-5: LGTM! New model imports and stubs added correctly.
The additions of PageSpeedCheck and HardwareCheck models along with their corresponding stubs are well-structured and follow the existing pattern.
Also applies to: 43-44
Comment on lines
+195
to
+239
| it("should return monitors with stats for hardware type", async () => { | ||
| // Mock data | ||
| const mockMonitors = [ | ||
| { | ||
| _id: "monitor1", | ||
| type: "hardware", | ||
| toObject: () => ({ | ||
| _id: "monitor1", | ||
| type: "hardware", | ||
| name: "Test Monitor", | ||
| }), | ||
| }, | ||
| ]; | ||
|
|
||
| const mockChecks = [ | ||
| { status: true }, | ||
| { status: true }, | ||
| { status: false }, | ||
| { status: true }, | ||
| ]; | ||
|
|
||
| monitorFindStub.resolves(mockMonitors); | ||
| hardwareCheckFindStub.resolves(mockChecks); | ||
|
|
||
| const result = await getAllMonitorsWithUptimeStats(); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(result).to.be.an("array"); | ||
| expect(result).to.have.lengthOf(1); | ||
|
|
||
| const monitor = result[0]; | ||
| expect(monitor).to.have.property("_id", "monitor1"); | ||
| expect(monitor).to.have.property("name", "Test Monitor"); | ||
|
|
||
| // Check uptime percentages exist for all time periods | ||
| expect(monitor).to.have.property("1"); | ||
| expect(monitor).to.have.property("7"); | ||
| expect(monitor).to.have.property("30"); | ||
| expect(monitor).to.have.property("90"); | ||
|
|
||
| // Verify uptime percentage calculation (3 successful out of 4 = 75%) | ||
| expect(monitor["1"]).to.equal(75); | ||
| expect(monitor["7"]).to.equal(75); | ||
| expect(monitor["30"]).to.equal(75); | ||
| expect(monitor["90"]).to.equal(75); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor hardware type test case to reduce duplication.
The test case has several opportunities for improvement:
- Extract common mock data and setup into shared helper functions
- Add hardware-specific test scenarios:
- Different hardware metrics (CPU, memory, disk)
- Various threshold values
- Hardware-specific error conditions
Example helper function:
function createMonitorMock(type) {
return {
_id: "monitor1",
type,
toObject: () => ({
_id: "monitor1",
type,
name: "Test Monitor"
})
};
}![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: The PR adds missing test cases for the
monitorModule, specifically forpagespeedandhardwaremonitor types, which were identified due to a recent pagespeed bug. This enhancement aims to improve the reliability and robustness of the monitoring system. - Key components modified: The primary modification is in the
Server/tests/db/monitorModule.test.jsfile, where new test cases are added. - Impact assessment: The changes primarily impact the testing infrastructure and do not directly alter the core functionality of the monitoring system.
- System dependencies and integration impacts: The changes introduce new dependencies on
PageSpeedCheckandHardwareCheckmodels for testing purposes, but there are no direct impacts on the core system's functionality or integration points.
1.2 Architecture Changes
- System design modifications: None. The PR focuses on enhancing test coverage without modifying the core system architecture.
- Component interactions: The tests interact with the
Monitor,Check,PageSpeedCheck, andHardwareCheckmodels. - Integration points: The PR does not impact integration points as the changes are isolated to the test file.
2. Detailed Technical Analysis
2.1 Code Logic Deep-Dive
Core Logic Changes
- Server/tests/db/monitorModule.test.js
- Function/Class Name:
getAllMonitorsWithUptimeStats - Submitted PR Code:
it("should return monitors with stats for pagespeed type", async () => { // Mock data const mockMonitors = [ { _id: "monitor1", type: "pagespeed", toObject: () => ({ _id: "monitor1", type: "pagespeed", name: "Test Monitor", }), }, ]; const mockChecks = [ { status: true }, { status: true }, { status: false }, { status: true }, ]; monitorFindStub.resolves(mockMonitors); pageSpeedCheckFindStub.resolves(mockChecks); const result = await getAllMonitorsWithUptimeStats(); expect(result).to.be.an("array"); expect(result).to.have.lengthOf(1); const monitor = result[0]; expect(monitor).to.have.property("_id", "monitor1"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("name", "Test Monitor"); // Check uptime percentages exist for all time periods expect(monitor).to.have.property("1"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("7"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("30"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("90"); // Verify uptime percentage calculation (3 successful out of 4 = 75%) expect(monitor["1"]).to.equal(75); expect(monitor["7"]).to.equal(75); expect(monitor["30"]).to.equal(75); expect(monitor["90"]).to.equal(75); });
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: The code introduces new test cases for
pagespeedandhardwaremonitor types. It mocks the data and checks the uptime percentages for various time periods. The logic is straightforward and covers the basic functionality. - Edge cases and error handling: The edge cases are not fully covered. For instance, what happens if there are no checks available or if the monitor type is not recognized?
- Cross-component impact: None. The changes are isolated to the test file.
- Business logic considerations: The business logic for calculating uptime percentages is correct and aligns with the requirements.
- Current logic and potential issues: The code introduces new test cases for
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
it("should handle no checks available for pagespeed type", async () => { // Mock data const mockMonitors = [ { _id: "monitor1", type: "pagespeed", toObject: () => ({ _id: "monitor1", type: "pagespeed", name: "Test Monitor", }), }, ]; const mockChecks = []; monitorFindStub.resolves(mockMonitors); pageSpeedCheckFindStub.resolves(mockChecks); const result = await getAllMonitorsWithUptimeStats(); expect(result).to.be.an("array"); expect(result).to.have.lengthOf(1); const monitor = result[0]; expect(monitor).to.have.property("_id", "monitor1"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("name", "Test Monitor"); // Check uptime percentages exist for all time periods expect(monitor).to.have.property("1"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("7"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("30"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("90"); // Verify uptime percentage calculation when no checks are available expect(monitor["1"]).to.equal(0); expect(monitor["7"]).to.equal(0); expect(monitor["30"]).to.equal(0); expect(monitor["90"]).to.equal(0); }); it("should handle no checks available for hardware type", async () => { // Mock data const mockMonitors = [ { _id: "monitor1", type: "hardware", toObject: () => ({ _id: "monitor1", type: "hardware", name: "Test Monitor", }), }, ]; const mockChecks = []; monitorFindStub.resolves(mockMonitors); hardwareCheckFindStub.resolves(mockChecks); const result = await getAllMonitorsWithUptimeStats(); expect(result).to.be.an("array"); expect(result).to.have.lengthOf(1); const monitor = result[0]; expect(monitor).to.have.property("_id", "monitor1"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("name", "Test Monitor"); // Check uptime percentages exist for all time periods expect(monitor).to.have.property("1"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("7"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("30"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("90"); // Verify uptime percentage calculation when no checks are available expect(monitor["1"]).to.equal(0); expect(monitor["7"]).to.equal(0); expect(monitor["30"]).to.equal(0); expect(monitor["90"]).to.equal(0); });
- Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits: Enhances test coverage by handling edge cases where no checks are available.
- Business value: Improves the reliability and robustness of the monitoring system.
- Risk assessment: Low risk. The changes are isolated to the test file and do not impact the core functionality.
- Function/Class Name:
Cross-cutting Concerns
- Data flow analysis: The data flow is correct and follows the expected sequence of operations.
- State management implications: Not applicable. The tests are isolated and do not involve state management.
- Error propagation paths: The tests do not fully address scenarios where exceptions might occur.
- Edge case handling across components: The tests should be extended to cover more edge cases, such as no checks available and unrecognized monitor types.
2.2 Implementation Quality
- Code organization and structure: The code is well-organized and modular, with clear separation of test setup and teardown.
- Design patterns usage: The use of Sinon for stubbing and mocks is appropriate and follows best practices.
- Error handling approach: The tests do not fully cover edge cases, such as no checks available or unrecognized monitor types.
- Resource management: The tests are lightweight and do not introduce significant resource utilization.
3. Critical Findings
3.1 Potential Issues
- 🔴 Critical Issues
-
Issue: The tests do not cover edge cases where no checks are available.
-
Impact:
- Technical implications: Incomplete test coverage may lead to undetected bugs in production.
- Business consequences: Reduced reliability and robustness of the monitoring system.
- User experience effects: Users may experience inaccurate uptime statistics.
-
Recommendation:
- Specific code changes: Add test cases to handle no checks available.
- Configuration updates: None.
- Testing requirements: Verify that the new test cases pass and cover the edge cases.
-
Issue: The tests do not cover all edge cases, such as unrecognized monitor types.
-
Impact:
- Performance implications: None.
- Maintenance overhead: Increased risk of undetected bugs.
- Future scalability: May require additional test cases as new monitor types are introduced.
-
Suggested Solution:
- Implementation approach: Add test cases to handle unrecognized monitor types.
- Migration strategy: None. The changes are isolated to the test file.
- Testing considerations: Verify that the new test cases pass and cover the edge cases.
-
3.2 Code Quality Concerns
- Maintainability aspects: The code is easy to read and maintain, with clear comments and well-defined test cases.
- Readability issues: None identified. The code is well-structured and easy to understand.
- Performance bottlenecks: None identified. The tests are already optimized for performance.
4. Security Assessment
4.1 Security Considerations
- Authentication/Authorization impacts: None. The PR does not affect authentication or authorization mechanisms.
- Data handling concerns: None. The tests use mock data and do not handle sensitive data.
- Input validation: Not applicable. The tests are isolated and do not involve input validation.
- Security best practices: The PR follows best practices for testing and does not introduce security risks.
4.2 Vulnerability Analysis
- Potential security risks: None identified. The PR does not introduce security risks.
- Mitigation strategies: None required. The PR follows best practices for testing.
- Security testing requirements: None required. The PR focuses on enhancing test coverage.
5. Testing Strategy
5.1 Test Coverage
- Unit test analysis: The PR introduces new unit tests for
pagespeedandhardwaremonitor types. - Integration test requirements: Not applicable. The PR focuses on unit tests.
- Edge case validation: The PR does not fully cover edge cases, such as no checks available and unrecognized monitor types.
5.2 Test Recommendations
Suggested Test Cases
- Add Test Cases for No Checks Available:
it("should handle no checks available for pagespeed type", async () => { // Mock data const mockMonitors = [ { _id: "monitor1", type: "pagespeed", toObject: () => ({ _id: "monitor1", type: "pagespeed", name: "Test Monitor", }), }, ]; const mockChecks = []; monitorFindStub.resolves(mockMonitors); pageSpeedCheckFindStub.resolves(mockChecks); const result = await getAllMonitorsWithUptimeStats(); expect(result).to.be.an("array"); expect(result).to.have.lengthOf(1); const monitor = result[0]; expect(monitor).to.have.property("_id", "monitor1"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("name", "Test Monitor"); // Check uptime percentages exist for all time periods expect(monitor).to.have.property("1"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("7"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("30"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("90"); // Verify uptime percentage calculation when no checks are available expect(monitor["1"]).to.equal(0); expect(monitor["7"]).to.equal(0); expect(monitor["30"]).to.equal(0); expect(monitor["90"]).to.equal(0); }); it("should handle no checks available for hardware type", async () => { // Mock data const mockMonitors = [ { _id: "monitor1", type: "hardware", toObject: () => ({ _id: "monitor1", type: "hardware", name: "Test Monitor", }), }, ]; const mockChecks = []; monitorFindStub.resolves(mockMonitors); hardwareCheckFindStub.resolves(mockChecks); const result = await getAllMonitorsWithUptimeStats(); expect(result).to.be.an("array"); expect(result).to.have.lengthOf(1); const monitor = result[0]; expect(monitor).to.have.property("_id", "monitor1"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("name", "Test Monitor"); // Check uptime percentages exist for all time periods expect(monitor).to.have.property("1"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("7"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("30"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("90"); // Verify uptime percentage calculation when no checks are available expect(monitor["1"]).to.equal(0); expect(monitor["7"]).to.equal(0); expect(monitor["30"]).to.equal(0); expect(monitor["90"]).to.equal(0); });
- Add Test Cases for Unrecognized Monitor Types:
it("should handle unrecognized monitor types", async () => { // Mock data const mockMonitors = [ { _id: "monitor1", type: "unknown", toObject: () => ({ _id: "monitor1", type: "unknown", name: "Test Monitor", }), }, ]; const mockChecks = [ { status: true }, { status: true }, { status: false }, { status: true }, ]; monitorFindStub.resolves(mockMonitors); checkFindStub.resolves(mockChecks); const result = await getAllMonitorsWithUptimeStats(); expect(result).to.be.an("array"); expect(result).to.have.lengthOf(1); const monitor = result[0]; expect(monitor).to.have.property("_id", "monitor1"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("name", "Test Monitor"); // Check uptime percentages exist for all time periods expect(monitor).to.have.property("1"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("7"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("30"); expect(monitor).to.have.property("90"); // Verify uptime percentage calculation for unrecognized monitor types expect(monitor["1"]).to.equal(0); expect(monitor["7"]).to.equal(0); expect(monitor["30"]).to.equal(0); expect(monitor["90"]).to.equal(0); });
- Coverage improvements: Ensure that the new test cases cover the edge cases and error scenarios.
- Performance testing needs: Consider implementing performance tests to ensure the efficiency of the monitoring system.
6. Documentation & Maintenance
- Documentation updates needed: Add comments to explain the purpose of each test case. Update the test suite documentation to reflect the new test cases.
- Long-term maintenance considerations: Ensure that the tests are easy to read, maintain, and extend.
- Technical debt and monitoring requirements: The PR introduces minimal technical debt, as the changes are isolated to the test file.
7. Deployment & Operations
- Deployment impact and strategy: The PR has minimal deployment impact, as the changes are isolated to the test file.
- Key operational considerations: The tests do not introduce new dependencies or impact the core functionality of the monitoring system.
8. Summary & Recommendations
8.1 Key Action Items
-
Critical changes required:
- Add test cases to handle no checks available for
pagespeedandhardwaremonitor types. - Add test cases to handle unrecognized monitor types.
- Add test cases to handle no checks available for
-
Important improvements suggested:
- Implement more comprehensive error handling in the tests.
- Ensure that the tests handle exceptions gracefully and provide clear error messages.
-
Best practices to implement:
- Use a comprehensive testing framework that supports integration tests, such as Jest with testing-library.
- Implement end-to-end tests to cover more complex scenarios and interactions between components.
-
Cross-cutting concerns to address:
- Consider implementing performance tests to ensure the efficiency of the monitoring system.
- Enhance the monitoring and debugging capabilities of the monitoring system.
8.2 Future Considerations
- Technical evolution path: Ensure that the tests are scalable and can be extended to cover additional monitor types.
- Business capability evolution: The PR improves the reliability and robustness of the monitoring system, which can support future business capabilities.
- System integration impacts: The PR does not impact integration points as the changes are isolated to the test file.
marcelluscaio
approved these changes
Nov 11, 2024
This was referenced Nov 11, 2024
This was referenced Nov 19, 2024
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 adds some missing test cases for the monitorModule, discovered because of recent pagespeed bug