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

unit test for user store #188

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 21, 2024
Merged

unit test for user store #188

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 21, 2024

Conversation

Rader
Copy link
Collaborator

@Rader Rader commented Nov 19, 2024

MR Summary:

The summary is added by @codegpt.

This Merge Request introduces unit tests for the user store functionalities within a software project. It modifies the user store implementation by renaming a method from GetActiveUserCount to CountUsers for clarity and updates the telemetry component to use this new method name. Additionally, it adds comprehensive unit tests for various user store methods, including user creation, searching with filters, username changes, and user count retrieval. These tests aim to ensure the reliability and correctness of user-related operations within the system.

Key updates:

  1. Renamed GetActiveUserCount to CountUsers in the user store implementation for better clarity.
  2. Updated the telemetry component to use the new CountUsers method.
  3. Added unit tests for user creation, searching, username changes, and user count retrieval to validate functionality.

@starship-github
Copy link

Possible Issues And Suggestions:

  • builder/store/database/user.go
    • Comments:
      • Removal of GetActiveUserCount method without deprecation notice might break existing integrations relying on it.
  • builder/store/database/user_test.go
    • Comments:
      • The use of context.TODO() replaced with context.WithTimeout improves test reliability but lacks error handling for context timeout.
    • Suggestions:
      // Add error handling for context deadline exceeded
      if ctx.Err() == context.DeadlineExceeded {
          t.Fatal("Context deadline exceeded")
      }
      

MR Evaluation:

This feature is still under test, evaluation are given by AI and might be inaccurate.

After evaluation, the code changes in the Merge Request get score: 94-100.

Tips

CodeReview Commands (invoked as MR or PR comments)

  • @codegpt /review to trigger an code review.
  • @codegpt /evaluate to trigger code evaluation process.
  • @codegpt /describe to regenerate the summary of the MR.
  • @codegpt /secscan to scan security vulnerabilities for the MR or the Repository.
  • @codegpt /help to get help.

CodeReview Discussion Chat

There are 2 ways to chat with Starship CodeReview:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by StarShip.
    Example:
    • @codegpt How to fix this bug?
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab):
    Tag @codegpt in a new review comment at the desired location with your query.
    Examples:
    • @codegpt generate unit testing code for this code snippet.

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 MR/PR comments.

CodeReview Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation
    for detailed information on how to use Starship CodeReview.

About Us:

Visit the OpenCSG StarShip website for the Dashboard and detailed information on CodeReview, CodeGen, and other StarShip modules.

@Rader Rader merged commit 499dfe4 into main Nov 21, 2024
0 of 4 checks passed
@Rader Rader deleted the cp-ut-user-store branch November 21, 2024 05:21
@starship-github
Copy link

The StarShip CodeReviewer was triggered but terminated because it encountered an issue: The MR state is not opened.

Tips

CodeReview Commands (invoked as MR or PR comments)

  • @codegpt /review to trigger an code review.
  • @codegpt /evaluate to trigger code evaluation process.
  • @codegpt /describe to regenerate the summary of the MR.
  • @codegpt /secscan to scan security vulnerabilities for the MR or the Repository.
  • @codegpt /help to get help.

CodeReview Discussion Chat

There are 2 ways to chat with Starship CodeReview:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by StarShip.
    Example:
    • @codegpt How to fix this bug?
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab):
    Tag @codegpt in a new review comment at the desired location with your query.
    Examples:
    • @codegpt generate unit testing code for this code snippet.

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 MR/PR comments.

CodeReview Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation
    for detailed information on how to use Starship CodeReview.

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.

2 participants