feat/be/tests-recovery-module #1145
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
![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 adds tests for the recovery module, which is responsible for handling user recovery processes such as password resets. This aligns with the business goal of maintaining high service uptime and user trust.
- Key components modified: The primary modification is in the
Server/tests/db/recoveryModule.test.jsfile, where new tests are added for the recovery module. - Impact assessment: The changes are mostly isolated to the test suite but involve mocking and interacting with various database models and utilities.
- System dependencies and integration impacts: No direct impact on integration points, but the tests validate the expected behavior of the recovery functions.
1.2 Architecture Changes
- System design modifications: None directly, as this PR mainly focuses on adding unit tests.
- Component interactions: Interactions with
RecoveryTokenandUsermodels are mocked and tested, ensuring that the recovery module's functions work as intended. - Integration points: No direct impact on integration points, but the tests contribute to overall system reliability.
2. Detailed Technical Analysis
2.1 Code Logic Deep-Dive
Core Logic Changes
File Path: Server/tests/db/recoveryModule.test.js - Function/Class Name: requestRecoveryToken
- Submitted PR Code:
describe("requestRecoveryToken", () => { it("should return a recovery token", async () => { deleteManyStub.resolves(); saveStub.resolves(mockRecoveryToken); const result = await requestRecoveryToken(req, res); expect(result.email).to.equal(mockRecoveryToken.email); }); it("should handle an error", async () => { const err = new Error("Test error"); deleteManyStub.rejects(err); try { await requestRecoveryToken(req, res); } catch (error) { expect(error).to.exist; expect(error).to.deep.equal(err); } }); });
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: The tests cover the happy path and error handling for
requestRecoveryToken. They ensure that a recovery token is returned correctly and that errors are handled appropriately. - Edge cases and error handling: The test for handling an error is present, but it could be made more explicit by checking the error message or type.
- Cross-component impact : None directly, but the tests mock interactions with the
RecoveryTokenmodel. - Business logic considerations : The tests align with the business logic of requesting recovery tokens.
- Current logic and potential issues: The tests cover the happy path and error handling for
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
it("should handle an error with specific message", async () => { const err = new Error("Test error"); deleteManyStub.rejects(err); try { await requestRecoveryToken(req, res); } catch (error) { expect(error).to.exist; expect(error.message).to.equal("Test error"); } });
- Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits: More explicit error message checking improves test clarity and specificity.
- Business value: Ensures that error handling is precise and aligns with expected error messages.
- Risk assessment: Low risk, as this is an improvement to an existing test.
File Path: Server/tests/db/recoveryModule.test.js - Function/Class Name: validateRecoveryToken
- Submitted PR Code:
describe("validateRecoveryToken", () => { it("should return a recovery token if found", async () => { findOneStub.resolves(mockRecoveryToken); const result = await validateRecoveryToken(req, res); expect(result).to.deep.equal(mockRecoveryToken); }); it("should thrown an error if a token is not found", async () => { findOneStub.resolves(null); try { await validateRecoveryToken(req, res); } catch (error) { expect(error).to.exist; expect(error.message).to.equal(errorMessages.DB_TOKEN_NOT_FOUND); } }); it("should handle DB errors", async () => { const err = new Error("Test error"); findOneStub.rejects(err); try { await validateRecoveryToken(req, res); } catch (error) { expect(error).to.exist; expect(error).to.deep.equal(err); } }); });
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: The tests cover the happy path, token not found scenario, and DB error handling for
validateRecoveryToken. They ensure that a recovery token is returned correctly and that errors are handled appropriately. - Edge cases and error handling: The tests cover various edge cases, but the error handling could be made more explicit by checking the error message or type.
- Cross-component impact : None directly, but the tests mock interactions with the
RecoveryTokenmodel. - Business logic considerations : The tests align with the business logic of validating recovery tokens.
- Current logic and potential issues: The tests cover the happy path, token not found scenario, and DB error handling for
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
it("should handle DB errors with specific message", async () => { const err = new Error("Test error"); findOneStub.rejects(err); try { await validateRecoveryToken(req, res); } catch (error) { expect(error).to.exist; expect(error.message).to.equal("Test error"); } });
- Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits: More explicit error message checking improves test clarity and specificity.
- Business value: Ensures that error handling is precise and aligns with expected error messages.
- Risk assessment: Low risk, as this is an improvement to an existing test.
File Path: Server/tests/db/recoveryModule.test.js - Function/Class Name: resetPassword
- Submitted PR Code:
describe("resetPassword", () => { beforeEach(() => { req.body = { password: "test", newPassword: "test1", }; }); afterEach(() => { sinon.restore(); }); it("should thrown an error if a recovery token is not found", async () => { findOneStub.resolves(null); try { await resetPassword(req, res); } catch (error) { expect(error).to.exist; expect(error.message).to.equal(errorMessages.DB_TOKEN_NOT_FOUND); } }); it("should throw an error if a user is not found", async () => { findOneStub.resolves(mockRecoveryToken); userFindOneStub = sinon.stub(User, "findOne").resolves(null); try { await resetPassword(req, res); } catch (error) { expect(error).to.exist; expect(error.message).to.equal(errorMessages.DB_USER_NOT_FOUND); } }); it("should throw an error if the passwords match", async () => { findOneStub.resolves(mockRecoveryToken); saveStub.resolves(); userFindOneStub = sinon .stub(User, "findOne") .returns(createQueryChain(mockUser, true)); try { await resetPassword(req, res); } catch (error) { expect(error).to.exist; expect(error.message).to.equal(errorMessages.DB_RESET_PASSWORD_BAD_MATCH); } }); it("should return a user without password if successful", async () => { findOneStub.resolves(mockRecoveryToken); saveStub.resolves(); userFindOneStub = sinon .stub(User, "findOne") .returns(createQueryChain(mockUser)) // First call will resolve to mockUser .onSecondCall() .returns(createQueryChain(mockUserWithoutPassword)); const result = await resetPassword(req, res); expect(result).to.deep.equal(mockUserWithoutPassword); }); });
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: The tests cover various scenarios for
resetPassword, including token not found, user not found, password match error, and successful password reset. They ensure that errors are handled appropriately and that the user's password is reset correctly. - Edge cases and error handling: The tests cover various edge cases, but the error handling could be made more explicit by checking the error message or type.
- Cross-component impact : None directly, but the tests mock interactions with the
RecoveryTokenandUsermodels. - Business logic considerations : The tests align with the business logic of resetting passwords.
- Current logic and potential issues: The tests cover various scenarios for
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
it("should handle DB errors with specific message", async () => { const err = new Error("Test error"); findOneStub.rejects(err); try { await resetPassword(req, res); } catch (error) { expect(error).to.exist; expect(error.message).to.equal("Test error"); } });
- Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits: More explicit error message checking improves test clarity and specificity.
- Business value: Ensures that error handling is precise and aligns with expected error messages.
- Risk assessment: Low risk, as this is an improvement to an existing test.
2.2 Implementation Quality
-
Code organization and structure:
- Organization and modularity: The tests are well-organized and modular, with clear separation of test cases for different functions.
- Design pattern adherence: The tests follow typical unit testing patterns, using mocks and stubs appropriately.
- Reusability aspects: The helper functions and mocks could be reused across different tests, promoting DRY principles.
- Maintainability factors: The tests are readable and maintainable, with clear setup and teardown phases.
-
Error Handling:
- Exception scenarios coverage: The tests cover various error scenarios, ensuring that the recovery module handles exceptions gracefully.
- Recovery mechanisms: The tests validate that the functions can recover from errors and continue to operate correctly.
- Logging and monitoring: Although not directly addressed in the tests, the error handling logic suggests that appropriate logging and monitoring would be in place.
- User experience impact: Proper error handling ensures that users receive meaningful feedback and that the system remains stable under error conditions.
-
Performance Considerations:
- Resource utilization: The tests do not introduce significant performance concerns, as they are focused on unit testing.
- Scalability aspects: The tests validate that the recovery functions can handle expected load and error conditions, contributing to overall system scalability.
- Bottleneck analysis: No significant bottlenecks are introduced by the tests.
- Optimization opportunities: The tests are already optimized for readability and maintainability.
3. Critical Findings
3.1 Potential Issues
🔴 Critical Issues
- Issue: No critical issues identified in the current PR.
🟡 Warnings
-
Issue: Improve error message checking in
requestRecoveryTokentest. -
Potential risks: Potential for ambiguous error handling in tests.
-
Suggested improvements:
it("should handle an error with specific message", async () => { const err = new Error("Test error"); deleteManyStub.rejects(err); try { await requestRecoveryToken(req, res); } catch (error) { expect(error).to.exist; expect(error.message).to.equal("Test error"); } });
-
Issue: Improve error message checking in
validateRecoveryTokentest. -
Potential risks: Potential for ambiguous error handling in tests.
-
Suggested improvements:
it("should handle DB errors with specific message", async () => { const err = new Error("Test error"); findOneStub.rejects(err); try { await validateRecoveryToken(req, res); } catch (error) { expect(error).to.exist; expect(error.message).to.equal("Test error"); } });
-
Issue: Improve error message checking in
resetPasswordtest. -
Potential risks: Potential for ambiguous error handling in tests.
-
Suggested improvements:
it("should handle DB errors with specific message", async () => { const err = new Error("Test error"); findOneStub.rejects(err); try { await resetPassword(req, res); } catch (error) { expect(error).to.exist; expect(error.message).to.equal("Test error"); } });
3.2 Code Quality Concerns
- Maintainability aspects: The tests are well-organized and maintainable, with clear setup and teardown phases.
- Readability issues: None identified.
- Performance bottlenecks: None identified.
4. Security Assessment
4.1 Security Considerations
- Authentication/Authorization impacts: None directly addressed in the tests, but the recovery processes should ensure proper authentication and authorization.
- Data handling concerns: The tests validate that recovery processes handle data securely and appropriately.
- Input validation: Although not directly addressed in the tests, the recovery functions should include input validation to prevent security vulnerabilities.
- Security best practices: The tests align with security best practices by ensuring that recovery processes are secure and handle errors appropriately.
4.2 Vulnerability Analysis
- Potential security risks: None identified in the current PR.
- Mitigation strategies: Ensure that the recovery functions include proper input validation and authentication/authorization mechanisms.
- Security testing requirements: The tests should be extended to include security-related scenarios, such as input validation and authentication/authorization tests.
5. Testing Strategy
5.1 Test Coverage
- Unit test analysis: The PR adds comprehensive unit tests for the recovery module functions.
- Integration test requirements: Not directly addressed, but the unit tests contribute to overall integration test coverage.
- Edge case validation: Various edge cases are covered, with room for improvement in explicit error message checking.
5.2 Test Recommendations
Suggested Test Cases
it("should handle an error with specific message", async () => {
const err = new Error("Test error");
deleteManyStub.rejects(err);
try {
await requestRecoveryToken(req, res);
} catch (error) {
expect(error).to.exist;
expect(error.message).to.equal("Test error");
}
});
it("should handle DB errors with specific message", async () => {
const err = new Error("Test error");
findOneStub.rejects(err);
try {
await validateRecoveryToken(req, res);
} catch (error) {
expect(error).to.exist;
expect(error.message).to.equal("Test error");
}
});
it("should handle DB errors with specific message", async () => {
const err = new Error("Test error");
findOneStub.rejects(err);
try {
await resetPassword(req, res);
} catch (error) {
expect(error).to.exist;
expect(error.message).to.equal("Test error");
}
});- Coverage improvements: Ensure that error messages are explicitly checked in other tests as well.
- Performance testing needs: Not directly addressed, but the tests contribute to overall system reliability.
6. Documentation & Maintenance
- Documentation updates needed (API, architecture, configuration): Add comments to explain the purpose of each test case and the expected behavior.
- Long-term maintenance considerations: The tests are well-organized and maintainable, promoting long-term code health.
- Technical debt and monitoring requirements: Ensure that the test suite documentation is up-to-date and comprehensive.
7. Deployment & Operations
- Deployment impact and strategy: The tests do not introduce significant deployment impacts, as they are isolated to the test suite.
- Key operational considerations: Rollback scenarios are minimal, as the changes are isolated to the test suite.
8. Summary & Recommendations
8.1 Key Action Items
-
Critical Changes (P0):
- None identified.
-
Important Improvements (P1):
- Improve error message checking in
requestRecoveryTokentest. - Ensure that error messages are explicitly checked in other tests as well.
- Improve error message checking in
-
Suggested Enhancements (P2):
- Add comments to explain the purpose of each test case and the expected behavior.
- Ensure that the test suite documentation is up-to-date and comprehensive.
8.2 Future Considerations
- Technical evolution path: Continuously improve test coverage and error handling in the recovery module.
- Business capability evolution: Ensure that the recovery processes align with evolving business requirements and user expectations.
- System integration impacts: Continuously validate the integration points and dependencies of the recovery module.
By addressing the identified improvements, the PR can be further enhanced to ensure comprehensive and robust testing of the recovery module.
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces a new 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: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
Server/tests/db/recoveryModule.test.js (2)
26-44: Yo dawg, let's clean up this query chain builder! 🍝The query chain builder is doing too much and could be simplified. Consider splitting it into separate builders for different concerns:
- const createQueryChain = (finalResult, comparePasswordResult = false) => ({ + const createUserQueryChain = (finalResult) => ({ select: () => ({ select: async () => { - if (finalResult === mockUser) { - return { - email: "[email protected]", - password: "oldPassword", - comparePassword: sinon.stub().resolves(comparePasswordResult), - save: sinon.stub().resolves(), - }; - } return finalResult; }, }), - comparePassword: sinon.stub().resolves(comparePasswordResult), save: sinon.stub().resolves(), }); + const createUserWithPasswordChain = (comparePasswordResult = false) => ({ + ...createUserQueryChain(mockUser), + comparePassword: sinon.stub().resolves(comparePasswordResult), + });
46-68: Mom's spaghetti moment: Let's organize these stubs better! 🍜The test setup could be more organized by grouping related stubs together.
- let deleteManyStub, - saveStub, - findOneStub, - userCompareStub, - userSaveStub, - userFindOneStub; + let tokenStubs = { + deleteMany: null, + save: null, + findOne: null + }; + let userStubs = { + comparePassword: null, + save: null, + findOne: null + }; beforeEach(() => { - deleteManyStub = sinon.stub(RecoveryToken, "deleteMany"); + tokenStubs = { + deleteMany: sinon.stub(RecoveryToken, "deleteMany"), + save: sinon.stub(RecoveryToken.prototype, "save"), + findOne: sinon.stub(RecoveryToken, "findOne") + };
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Server/tests/db/recoveryModule.test.js(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
Server/tests/db/recoveryModule.test.js (1)
115-171: He's nervous, but on the surface these tests look calm and ready! 💪
The resetPassword tests are comprehensive but could use some improvements:
- Group related test cases using nested
describeblocks - Add tests for:
- Password complexity requirements
- Maximum password length
- Special characters in password
Example organization:
describe("resetPassword", () => {
describe("validation", () => {
it("should validate password complexity");
it("should validate maximum length");
});
describe("token verification", () => {
// existing token tests
});
describe("password update", () => {
// existing update tests
});
});Let's check if password validation is implemented in the main module:
Comment on lines
+70
to
+87
| describe("requestRecoveryToken", () => { | ||
| it("should return a recovery token", async () => { | ||
| deleteManyStub.resolves(); | ||
| saveStub.resolves(mockRecoveryToken); | ||
| const result = await requestRecoveryToken(req, res); | ||
| expect(result.email).to.equal(mockRecoveryToken.email); | ||
| }); | ||
| it("should handle an error", async () => { | ||
| const err = new Error("Test error"); | ||
| deleteManyStub.rejects(err); | ||
| try { | ||
| await requestRecoveryToken(req, res); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| expect(error).to.exist; | ||
| expect(error).to.deep.equal(err); | ||
| } | ||
| }); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Knees weak, test coverage's heavy! We're missing some cases! 🤔
The test suite for requestRecoveryToken is missing some important scenarios:
Add these test cases:
- Invalid email format
- Empty email
- Case where save fails but delete succeeds
- Verify the token format/structure
Here's a sample test case:
it("should validate email format", async () => {
req.body.email = "invalid-email";
try {
await requestRecoveryToken(req, res);
} catch (error) {
expect(error.message).to.equal(errorMessages.INVALID_EMAIL_FORMAT);
}
});
Comment on lines
+88
to
+113
| describe("validateRecoveryToken", () => { | ||
| it("should return a recovery token if found", async () => { | ||
| findOneStub.resolves(mockRecoveryToken); | ||
| const result = await validateRecoveryToken(req, res); | ||
| expect(result).to.deep.equal(mockRecoveryToken); | ||
| }); | ||
| it("should thrown an error if a token is not found", async () => { | ||
| findOneStub.resolves(null); | ||
| try { | ||
| await validateRecoveryToken(req, res); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| expect(error).to.exist; | ||
| expect(error.message).to.equal(errorMessages.DB_TOKEN_NOT_FOUND); | ||
| } | ||
| }); | ||
| it("should handle DB errors", async () => { | ||
| const err = new Error("Test error"); | ||
| findOneStub.rejects(err); | ||
| try { | ||
| await validateRecoveryToken(req, res); | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| expect(error).to.exist; | ||
| expect(error).to.deep.equal(err); | ||
| } | ||
| }); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's vomit on his sweater already - we forgot to test token expiration! 😰
The validateRecoveryToken tests should include token expiration scenarios.
Add a test case for expired tokens:
it("should throw an error if token is expired", async () => {
const expiredToken = {
...mockRecoveryToken,
createdAt: new Date(Date.now() - 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000) // 24 hours ago
};
findOneStub.resolves(expiredToken);
try {
await validateRecoveryToken(req, res);
} catch (error) {
expect(error.message).to.equal(errorMessages.TOKEN_EXPIRED);
}
});
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 tests for the recovery module