test(x/auth/vesting/types): test Periods.String() #22059
Conversation
odeke-em
requested review from
facundomedica,
testinginprod,
aaronc and
a team
as code owners
📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughA new test file named Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: .coderabbit.yml 📥 CommitsFiles that changed from the base of the PR and between e481693977314d0e11220703efed6efb1a97a83e and a4bb863. 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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
|
julienrbrt
changed the title
julienrbrt
added
the
backport/v0.52.x
![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 (2)
x/auth/vesting/types/period_test.go (2)
10-39: LGTM: Well-structured table-driven tests with good coverage.The test function
TestPeriodsStringis well-designed using table-driven tests. It covers important scenarios: empty slice, single period, and multiple periods. This approach allows for easy addition of more test cases in the future.Consider adding a test case for a very large number of periods to ensure the
String()method handles such cases efficiently.
1-50: Great job on implementing this test!This test file effectively addresses the PR objective of locking in specific behavior for
Periods.String(). It covers multiple scenarios (empty, single, and multiple periods) and uses good testing practices such as table-driven tests and subtests.The implementation will help prevent regressions related to the string representation of periods, which aligns well with the goal of avoiding bugs similar to those addressed in PR #22006.
To further enhance the test coverage:
- Consider adding edge cases, such as periods with very large values or unusual coin denominations.
- If applicable, add tests for error cases or invalid inputs to ensure robust error handling.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: golangci-lint
[failure] 42-42:
The copy of the 'for' variable "tt" can be deleted (Go 1.22+) (copyloopvar)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL
📥 Commits
Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3a5a619 and e481693977314d0e11220703efed6efb1a97a83e.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- x/auth/vesting/types/period_test.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
x/auth/vesting/types/period_test.go (2)
Pattern
**/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.
Pattern
**/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"
🪛 GitHub Check: golangci-lint
x/auth/vesting/types/period_test.go
[failure] 42-42:
The copy of the 'for' variable "tt" can be deleted (Go 1.22+) (copyloopvar)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
x/auth/vesting/types/period_test.go (1)
1-8: LGTM: Package declaration and imports are correct.The package declaration and imports are appropriate for this test file. The use of
types_testpackage name follows the Go convention for external tests.
x/auth/vesting/types/period_test.go
Outdated
| for _, tt := range tests { | ||
| tt := tt | ||
| t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) { | ||
| got := tt.periods.String() | ||
| if got != tt.want { | ||
| t.Fatalf("Mismatch in values:\n\tGot: %q\n\tWant: %q", got, tt.want) | ||
| } | ||
| }) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM: Test execution is well-implemented with subtests.
The test execution loop is well-structured, using subtests for each case. This approach provides better organization and more detailed test reporting.
There's a minor issue flagged by the static analysis tool. To address this and future-proof the code, you can modify line 42 as follows:
- tt := tt
+ tt := tt // Explicitly copying loop variable for Go versions prior to 1.22This change maintains compatibility with older Go versions while acknowledging the upcoming change in Go 1.22+.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| for _, tt := range tests { | |
| tt := tt | |
| t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) { | |
| got := tt.periods.String() | |
| if got != tt.want { | |
| t.Fatalf("Mismatch in values:\n\tGot: %q\n\tWant: %q", got, tt.want) | |
| } | |
| }) | |
| } | |
| for _, tt := range tests { | |
| tt := tt // Explicitly copying loop variable for Go versions prior to 1.22 | |
| t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) { | |
| got := tt.periods.String() | |
| if got != tt.want { | |
| t.Fatalf("Mismatch in values:\n\tGot: %q\n\tWant: %q", got, tt.want) | |
| } | |
| }) | |
| } |
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: golangci-lint
[failure] 42-42:
The copy of the 'for' variable "tt" can be deleted (Go 1.22+) (copyloopvar)
|
Thanks. Good job! |
odeke-em
force-pushed
the
test-x-auth-vesting-types-Periods.String
branch
2 times, most recently
from
79edade to
f6e8634
Compare
This change adds a test to lock-in behavior and prevent regressions that let the bugs such as was fixed in PR cosmos#22006. This test ensures that if there is any regression that it'll be caught.
odeke-em
force-pushed
the
test-x-auth-vesting-types-Periods.String
branch
from
f6e8634 to
a4bb863
Compare
(cherry picked from commit c5889a4)
…22075) Co-authored-by: Emmanuel T Odeke <[email protected]>
This change adds a test to lock-in behavior and prevent regressions that let the bugs such as was fixed in PR #22006. This test ensures that if there is any regression that it'll be caught.
Summary by CodeRabbit
types.Periodsfunctionality.