Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add missing test case for docker monitor type #1158

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 15, 2024

Conversation

ajhollid
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR adds a missing test case for getMonitorStatsById. A test case for docker type monitors was missing.

@ajhollid ajhollid merged commit 0b7c536 into develop Nov 15, 2024
1 check was pending
@ajhollid ajhollid deleted the fix/be/tests-docker-test branch November 15, 2024 07:07
Copy link

@llamapreview llamapreview bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Auto Pull Request Review from LlamaPReview

1. Overview

1.1 PR Summary

  • Business value and requirements alignment: This PR adds a missing test case for the getMonitorStatsById function to cover the docker monitor type. This is crucial for ensuring comprehensive test coverage, enhancing the reliability and maintainability of the BlueWave Uptime monitoring tool.
  • Key components modified: The test file Server/tests/db/monitorModule.test.js was modified to include the new test case.
  • Impact assessment: The change is localized to the test suite but has broader implications on system reliability and maintainability.
  • System dependencies and integration impacts: No direct impact on system dependencies or integration points.

1.2 Architecture Changes

  • System design modifications: No changes to the system design.
  • Component interactions: No changes to component interactions.
  • Integration points: No impact on integration points.

2. Detailed Technical Analysis

2.1 Code Logic Deep-Dive

Core Logic Changes

  • Server/tests/db/monitorModule.test.js - getMonitorStatsById
    • Submitted PR Code:
      +	it("should return monitor stats with calculated values, docker type", async () => {
      +		monitorFindByIdStub.returns(mockMonitorDocker);
      +		req.query.sortOrder = "desc";
      +		const result = await getMonitorStatsById(req);
      +		expect(result).to.include.keys([
      +			"_id",
      +			"type",
      +			"name",
      +			"url",
      +			"uptimeDuration",
      +			"lastChecked",
      +			"latestResponseTime",
      +			"periodIncidents",
      +			"periodTotalChecks",
      +			"periodAvgResponseTime",
      +			"periodUptime",
      +			"aggregateData",
      +		]);
      +		expect(result.latestResponseTime).to.equal(100);
      +		expect(result.periodTotalChecks).to.equal(3);
      +		expect(result.periodIncidents).to.equal(1);
      +		expect(result.periodUptime).to.be.a("number");
      +		expect(result.aggregateData).to.be.an("array");
      +	});
    • Analysis:
      • Current logic and potential issues: The new test case checks the getMonitorStatsById function for the docker monitor type. It verifies that the function returns the expected keys and values.
      • Edge cases and error handling: The test case covers the basic scenario but does not include edge cases such as empty results or invalid input.
      • Cross-component impact: None, as this is a unit test.
      • Business logic considerations: The test aligns with the business requirement to ensure all monitor types are covered.
    • LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
      it("should return monitor stats with calculated values, docker type", async () => {
          monitorFindByIdStub.returns(mockMonitorDocker);
          req.query.sortOrder = "desc";
          const result = await getMonitorStatsById(req);
          expect(result).to.include.keys([
              "_id",
              "type",
              "name",
              "url",
              "uptimeDuration",
              "lastChecked",
              "latestResponseTime",
              "periodIncidents",
              "periodTotalChecks",
              "periodAvgResponseTime",
              "periodUptime",
              "aggregateData",
          ]);
          expect(result.latestResponseTime).to.equal(100);
          expect(result.periodTotalChecks).to.equal(3);
          expect(result.periodIncidents).to.equal(1);
          expect(result.periodUptime).to.be.a("number");
          expect(result.aggregateData).to.be.an("array");
      });
      
      it("should handle empty results for docker type", async () => {
          monitorFindByIdStub.returns(null);
          req.query.sortOrder = "desc";
          const result = await getMonitorStatsById(req);
          expect(result).to.be.null;
      });
      
      it("should handle invalid input for docker type", async () => {
          req.query.sortOrder = "invalid";
          try {
              await getMonitorStatsById(req);
          } catch (error) {
              expect(error).to.exist;
          }
      });
    • Improvement rationale:
      • Technical benefits: Ensures comprehensive test coverage by including edge cases.
      • Business value: Enhances the reliability of the monitoring tool.
      • Risk assessment: Reduces the risk of undetected bugs and issues in production.

2.2 Implementation Quality

  • Code organization and structure: The new test case is well-placed within the existing structure.
  • Design patterns usage: Follows the existing pattern of unit tests.
  • Error handling approach: Basic scenarios are covered, but edge cases are not handled.
  • Resource management: No significant impact on resource management.

3. Critical Findings

3.1 Potential Issues

  • 🔴 Critical Issues:

    • Issue: Lack of edge case handling in the new test case.
    • Impact: Incomplete test coverage could lead to undetected bugs.
    • Recommendation: Add test cases for edge scenarios such as empty results or invalid input.
  • 🟡 Warnings:

    • Warning: Lack of documentation for the new test case.
    • Potential risks: Higher maintenance overhead due to lack of documentation.
    • Suggested improvements: Add comments explaining the purpose and expected behavior of the new test case.

3.2 Code Quality Concerns

  • Maintainability aspects: The test case is clear and easy to understand but could benefit from additional documentation.
  • Readability issues: None identified.
  • Performance bottlenecks: No significant impact on performance.

4. Security Assessment

4.1 Security Considerations

  • Data handling concerns: No direct security implications as the change is localized to the test suite.
  • Input validation: Ensure the test case includes scenarios with invalid input to validate the function's input validation mechanisms.

4.2 Vulnerability Analysis

  • Potential security risks: The lack of edge case handling could lead to undetected vulnerabilities.
  • Mitigation strategies: Add test cases for edge scenarios such as empty results or invalid input.
  • Security testing requirements: Ensure all edge cases are covered in the test suite.

5. Testing Strategy

5.1 Test Coverage

  • Unit test analysis: The new test case covers the basic scenario for the docker monitor type but does not include edge cases or error scenarios.
  • Integration test requirements: Not applicable for this PR.
  • Edge cases coverage: Edge cases are not covered in the new test case.

5.2 Test Recommendations

Suggested Test Cases

it("should handle empty results for docker type", async () => {
    monitorFindByIdStub.returns(null);
    req.query.sortOrder = "desc";
    const result = await getMonitorStatsById(req);
    expect(result).to.be.null;
});

it("should handle invalid input for docker type", async () => {
    req.query.sortOrder = "invalid";
    try {
        await getMonitorStatsById(req);
    } catch (error) {
        expect(error).to.exist;
    }
});
  • Coverage improvements: Ensure all edge cases are covered in the test suite.
  • Performance testing needs: Not applicable for this unit test.

6. Documentation & Maintenance

  • Documentation updates needed: Add comments explaining the purpose and expected behavior of the new test case.
  • Long-term maintenance considerations: The lack of edge case handling and documentation could increase maintenance overhead.
  • Technical debt and monitoring requirements: Ensure the test suite is well-documented and easy to maintain.

7. Deployment & Operations

  • Deployment impact and strategy: No significant impact on deployment as the change is localized to the test suite.
  • Key operational considerations: Ensure the test suite can be rolled back to a previous version if the new test case introduces issues.

8. Summary & Recommendations

8.1 Key Action Items

  1. Critical changes required:

    • Add test cases for edge scenarios such as empty results or invalid input.
  2. Important improvements suggested:

    • Add comments explaining the purpose and expected behavior of the new test case.
  3. Best practices to implement:

    • Ensure consistent naming conventions and formatting.
    • Update the documentation with any new test cases added.
  4. Cross-cutting concerns to address:

    • Ensure comprehensive test coverage by including edge cases.
    • Improve error handling in the test case.

8.2 Future Considerations

  • Technical evolution path: Consider using a data-driven testing approach to cover multiple scenarios with minimal code duplication.
  • Business capability evolution: Enhance the reliability and maintainability of the monitoring tool by ensuring comprehensive test coverage.
  • System integration impacts: No direct impact on system integration.

This review aims to provide specific, actionable feedback to ensure the PR meets the highest standards of technical accuracy and long-term maintainability.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 15, 2024

Caution

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

Walkthrough

The pull request enhances the test suite for the monitorModule by introducing a new mock monitor type, mockMonitorDocker, and expanding existing test cases. It validates the getMonitorStatsById function for Docker monitors and adds scenarios for getAllMonitorsWithUptimeStats across different monitor types. Error handling improvements are made in multiple functions, ensuring robust assertions for error messages and service methods. Overall, the changes aim to strengthen the coverage and reliability of the test suite.

Changes

File Change Summary
Server/tests/db/monitorModule.test.js - Added a new mock monitor type mockMonitorDocker.
- Expanded tests for getMonitorStatsById and getAllMonitorsWithUptimeStats.
- Enhanced error handling tests for getMonitorById, deleteMonitor, and createMonitor.
- Tested deleteAllMonitors and deleteMonitorsByUserId for database error handling.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • shyna92
  • marcelluscaio
  • jennifer-gan

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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

‼️ IMPORTANT
Auto-reply has been disabled for this repository in the CodeRabbit settings. The CodeRabbit bot will not respond to your replies unless it is explicitly tagged.

  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

1 participant