Add some handler tests

[Yiling-J]

What is this feature?

Add some handler tests.

Why do we need this feature?

[Add a description of the problem the feature is trying to solve.]

Who is this feature for?

[Add information on what kind of user the feature is for.]

Which issue(s) does this PR fix?:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

MR Summary:

The summary is added by @codegpt.

The Merge Request introduces enhancements and bug fixes across various components, focusing on adding and refining tests, improving code quality, and extending functionality. Key updates include:

1. Implemented new features and tests for handling prompts, including creating, updating, deleting, and listing prompts.
2. Enhanced user component functionalities, including dataset, model, code, and space management, alongside like and dislike features for collections and repositories.
3. Improved sensitive content checking with Aliyun Green integration, ensuring content moderation across text and images.
4. Refined Git HTTP handler functionalities for better management of repositories, including file creation, update, deletion, and retrieval.
5. Extended support for handling user-related operations, such as managing user datasets, models, codes, spaces, and their likes/dislikes.
6. Added comprehensive tests across components to ensure reliability and stability of new features.

[starship-github]

Linter Issue Report

During the code review, a list issues were found. These issues could affect the code quality, maintainability, and consistency. Below is the detailed Linter issue report:

builder/sensitive/aliyun_green.go

Lint Issue: undefined: TextScanResponse

• Location: Line 34, Column 54
• Code Snippet:

  func (c *greenClientImpl) TextScan(request *green.TextScanRequest) (response *TextScanResponse, err error) {

• Suggestion: It appears that TextScanResponse is not defined within this file or imported packages. Ensure that you have defined TextScanResponse or imported the package containing its definition. If it's a custom type, you might need to define it as a struct or type alias within this package or an imported package.

Lint Issue: undefined: CheckResult

• Location: Line 167, Column 13
• Code Snippet:

  func (c *AliyunGreenChecker) PassLargeTextCheck(ctx context.Context, text string) (*CheckResult, error) {

• Suggestion: Similar to the previous issue, CheckResult is not recognized. Ensure that CheckResult is correctly defined or imported. If CheckResult is intended to be a custom type representing the result of a check, you should define it as a struct with appropriate fields that match your use case.

common/types/prompt.go

Lint Issue: undefined: SensitiveField

• Location: Line 137, Column 43
• Code Context:

  fields = append(fields, SensitiveField{

• Suggestion: It seems like the SensitiveField type is not defined within this file or imported from another package. Please ensure that you have defined SensitiveField in the appropriate package or have imported it correctly. If SensitiveField is part of an external package, include that package in your imports. For example, if SensitiveField is defined in the sensitive package, you should have an import statement like import "path/to/sensitive". If it's defined within the same package but in a different file, ensure that the file is correctly named and placed in the same package directory.

---

Please make the suggested changes to improve the code quality.

[pulltheflower]

LGTM

[starship-github]

Possible Issues And Suggestions:

• component/user_test.go

  • Comments:
    • Field names in UserLikesRequest struct were corrected for consistency (e.g., "Repo_id" to "RepoID"). Ensure all references to these fields are updated across the codebase to prevent runtime errors.

• component/prompt_test.go

  • Comments:
    • The change from 'CreatePromptReq' and 'UpdatePromptReq' to 'types.CreatePromptReq' and 'types.UpdatePromptReq' suggests a refactoring for better namespacing or package organization. However, it's crucial to ensure that all references to these types are updated accordingly across the project to avoid compilation errors.

• api/handler/user.go

  • Comments:
    • Typo in error message "Failed to gat user datasets" should be "get".
  • Suggestions:

    slog.Error("Failed to get user datasets", slog.Any("error", err))
    

• api/handler/user.go

  • Comments:
    • Inconsistent variable naming 'repo_id' should follow camelCase 'repoID'.
  • Suggestions:

    req.RepoID = repoID
    

• api/handler/git_http_test.go

  • Comments:
    • The WithBody(t, types.LfsLockReq{}) call in TestGitHTTPHandler_CreateLock and TestGitHTTPHandler_VerifyLock does not correctly marshal the request body into JSON.
  • Suggestions:

    bodyBytes, _ := json.Marshal(types.LfsLockReq{})
    tester.WithBody(bytes.NewReader(bodyBytes))
    

• api/handler/model_test.go

  • Comments:
    • Missing error check for 'tester.mocks.sensitive.CheckRequestV2' call.
  • Suggestions:

    ok, err := tester.mocks.sensitive.CheckRequestV2(tester.ctx, req)
    require.NoError(t, err)
    require.True(t, ok)
    

• Line 76 in api/handler/helper_test.go

  • Comments:
    • Directly setting g.ctx.Request.Body without closing the previous body could lead to resource leaks in more complex tests.
  • Suggestions:

    if g.ctx.Request.Body != nil {
        g.ctx.Request.Body.Close()
    }
    g.ctx.Request.Body = io.NopCloser(bytes.NewBuffer(b))
    

• builder/sensitive/aliyun_green.go

  • Comments:
    • The truncString function uses a hardcoded approach to append ellipsis, which might not be efficient or clear for different string encodings.
  • Suggestions:

    // More efficient and clear approach for appending ellipsis
    func truncString(s string, limit int) string {
      if len(s) <= limit {
        return s
      }
      return s[:limit-3] + "..."
    }
    

• Line 52 in api/handler/code_test.go

  • Comments:
    • The test cases do not validate the response content thoroughly, only the status code and a simple response structure.
  • Suggestions:

    // Suggestion to include more detailed response content validation
    expectedResponse := gin.H{"data": &types.Code{Name: "c"}}
    require.Equal(t, expectedResponse, tester.getResponseData())
    

• api/httpbase/user.go

  • Comments:
    • Unnecessary import grouping change. It's a minor style inconsistency without a clear benefit, potentially making the diff harder to review.

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: 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.

[starship-github]

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.