PR Diff that adds tests

[EmbeddedDevops1]

PR Type

Enhancement, Tests

---

Description

• Added support for generating tests based on diff coverage, focusing on changes between branches.
• Implemented parsing and processing of diff coverage reports.
• Enhanced the PromptBuilder to include diff coverage instructions.
• Updated the UnitTestGenerator to handle diff coverage during test validation and generation.
• Added command-line options to enable diff coverage and specify the comparison branch.
• Updated and added tests to cover new diff coverage functionality.
• Added diff-cover as a new dependency in pyproject.toml.

---

Changes walkthrough 📝

	Relevant files
Enhancement	6 files CoverAgent.py Add diff coverage support to CoverAgent class                        cover_agent/CoverAgent.py Added support for diff coverage in the CoverAgent class. Modified logging to differentiate between diff coverage and overall coverage. Updated logic to handle diff coverage during test generation. +19/-6    CoverageProcessor.py Implement parsing for diff coverage reports                            cover_agent/CoverageProcessor.py Added method to parse diff coverage reports. Extracted total, missing, and processed lines from diff coverage reports. +17/-0    PromptBuilder.py Enhance PromptBuilder with diff coverage capabilities        cover_agent/PromptBuilder.py Introduced diff coverage text in prompt building. Added methods to extract changed lines from git diff. +77/-1    UnitTestGenerator.py Integrate diff coverage in UnitTestGenerator                          cover_agent/UnitTestGenerator.py Integrated diff coverage logic in test generation. Added methods to run and validate diff coverage. +69/-1    main.py Add CLI options for diff coverage                                                cover_agent/main.py Added command-line arguments for diff coverage. +13/-0    test_generation_prompt.toml Update prompt template for diff coverage                                  cover_agent/settings/test_generation_prompt.toml Added diff coverage text section to the prompt template. +5/-0
Tests	2 files test_CoverAgent.py Update CoverAgent tests for diff coverage                                tests/test_CoverAgent.py Updated tests to include diff coverage parameters. +9/-3      test_UnitTestGenerator.py Add tests for diff coverage in UnitTestGenerator                  tests/test_UnitTestGenerator.py Added tests for diff coverage functionality. +44/-0
Formatting	1 files test_PromptBuilder.py Format test_PromptBuilder.py                                                          tests/test_PromptBuilder.py Minor formatting changes. +2/-1
Dependencies	1 files pyproject.toml Add diff-cover dependency                                                                pyproject.toml Added diff-cover as a dependency. +1/-0

---

💡 PR-Agent usage: Comment /help "your question" on any pull request to receive relevant information

[qodo-merge-pro]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 4 🔵🔵🔵🔵⚪

🧪 PR contains tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Possible Bug The diff coverage logic might not be correctly integrated with the existing coverage logic. The code switches between diff coverage and regular coverage without clear conditions. Code Duplication The diff coverage command is duplicated in both run_diff_coverage and validate_test methods. This could be refactored into a separate method. Performance Concern The _get_diff method runs two separate git commands for unstaged and staged changes. This could potentially be optimized into a single git command.

[qodo-merge-pro]

CI Failure Feedback 🧐

(Checks updated until commit e90ddd8)

Action: test

Failed stage: Run tests and generate reports [❌]

Failed test name: tests/test_CoverAgent.py

Failure summary: The action failed due to multiple errors encountered during test collection: A NameError occurred because the name List is not defined in the CoverageProcessor class in the cover_agent/CoverageProcessor.py file. This error suggests that the List type from the typing module is not imported. This error was repeated across multiple test files (tests/test_CoverAgent.py, tests/test_CoverageProcessor.py, tests/test_UnitTestGenerator.py, and tests/test_main.py) as they all attempt to import and use the CoverageProcessor class. Additionally, the required test coverage of 65% was not reached, with the total coverage being only 15.24%.

Relevant error logs: 1: ##[group]Operating System 2: Ubuntu ... 724: ============================= test session starts ============================== 725: platform linux -- Python 3.12.7, pytest-8.3.3, pluggy-1.5.0 726: rootdir: /home/runner/work/cover-agent/cover-agent 727: configfile: pyproject.toml 728: plugins: anyio-4.6.2.post1, timeout-2.3.1, asyncio-0.23.8, cov-5.0.0, mock-3.14.0 729: asyncio: mode=Mode.STRICT 730: ----------------------------- live log collection ------------------------------ 731: INFO httpx:_client.py:1038 HTTP Request: GET https://raw.githubusercontent.com/BerriAI/litellm/main/model_prices_and_context_window.json "HTTP/1.1 200 OK" 732: collected 47 items / 4 errors 733: ==================================== ERRORS ==================================== 734: __________________ ERROR collecting tests/test_CoverAgent.py ___________________ ... 737: cover_agent/CoverAgent.py:9: in <module> 738: from cover_agent.UnitTestGenerator import UnitTestGenerator 739: cover_agent/UnitTestGenerator.py:9: in <module> 740: from cover_agent.CoverageProcessor import CoverageProcessor 741: cover_agent/CoverageProcessor.py:10: in <module> 742: class CoverageProcessor: 743: cover_agent/CoverageProcessor.py:270: in CoverageProcessor 744: def parse_json_diff_coverage_report(self) -> Tuple[List[int], List[int], float]: 745: E NameError: name 'List' is not defined 746: _______________ ERROR collecting tests/test_CoverageProcessor.py _______________ 747: tests/test_CoverageProcessor.py:3: in <module> 748: from cover_agent.CoverageProcessor import CoverageProcessor 749: cover_agent/CoverageProcessor.py:10: in <module> 750: class CoverageProcessor: 751: cover_agent/CoverageProcessor.py:270: in CoverageProcessor 752: def parse_json_diff_coverage_report(self) -> Tuple[List[int], List[int], float]: 753: E NameError: name 'List' is not defined 754: _______________ ERROR collecting tests/test_UnitTestGenerator.py _______________ 755: tests/test_UnitTestGenerator.py:1: in <module> 756: from cover_agent.CoverageProcessor import CoverageProcessor 757: cover_agent/CoverageProcessor.py:10: in <module> 758: class CoverageProcessor: 759: cover_agent/CoverageProcessor.py:270: in CoverageProcessor 760: def parse_json_diff_coverage_report(self) -> Tuple[List[int], List[int], float]: 761: E NameError: name 'List' is not defined 762: _____________________ ERROR collecting tests/test_main.py ______________________ ... 767: cover_agent/CoverAgent.py:9: in <module> 768: from cover_agent.UnitTestGenerator import UnitTestGenerator 769: cover_agent/UnitTestGenerator.py:9: in <module> 770: from cover_agent.CoverageProcessor import CoverageProcessor 771: cover_agent/CoverageProcessor.py:10: in <module> 772: class CoverageProcessor: 773: cover_agent/CoverageProcessor.py:270: in CoverageProcessor 774: def parse_json_diff_coverage_report(self) -> Tuple[List[int], List[int], float]: 775: E NameError: name 'List' is not defined 776: =============================== warnings summary =============================== 777: ../../../.cache/pypoetry/virtualenvs/cover-agent-a0pACUfe-py3.12/lib/python3.12/site-packages/starlette/formparsers.py:12 778: /home/runner/.cache/pypoetry/virtualenvs/cover-agent-a0pACUfe-py3.12/lib/python3.12/site-packages/starlette/formparsers.py:12: PendingDeprecationWarning: Please use `import python_multipart` instead. 779: import multipart 780: ../../../.cache/pypoetry/virtualenvs/cover-agent-a0pACUfe-py3.12/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pydantic/_internal/_config.py:291 781: /home/runner/.cache/pypoetry/virtualenvs/cover-agent-a0pACUfe-py3.12/lib/python3.12/site-packages/pydantic/_internal/_config.py:291: PydanticDeprecatedSince20: Support for class-based `config` is deprecated, use ConfigDict instead. Deprecated in Pydantic V2.0 to be removed in V3.0. See Pydantic V2 Migration Guide at https://errors.pydantic.dev/2.9/migration/ ... 809: cover_agent/settings/config_loader.py 20 11 45% 810: cover_agent/utils.py 71 65 8% 811: cover_agent/version.py 11 1 91% 812: ----------------------------------------------------------- 813: TOTAL 945 801 15% 814: Coverage XML written to file cobertura.xml 815: FAIL Required test coverage of 65% not reached. Total coverage: 15.24% 816: =========================== short test summary info ============================ 817: ERROR tests/test_CoverAgent.py - NameError: name 'List' is not defined 818: ERROR tests/test_CoverageProcessor.py - NameError: name 'List' is not defined 819: ERROR tests/test_UnitTestGenerator.py - NameError: name 'List' is not defined 820: ERROR tests/test_main.py - NameError: name 'List' is not defined 821: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Interrupted: 4 errors during collection !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 822: ======================== 5 warnings, 4 errors in 9.42s ========================= 823: make: *** [Makefile:8: test] Error 2 824: ##[error]Process completed with exit code 2.

---

✨ CI feedback usage guide:

---

The CI feedback tool (/checks) automatically triggers when a PR has a failed check.
The tool analyzes the failed checks and provides several feedbacks:

• Failed stage
• Failed test name
• Failure summary
• Relevant error logs

In addition to being automatically triggered, the tool can also be invoked manually by commenting on a PR:

/checks "https://github.com/{repo_name}/actions/runs/{run_number}/job/{job_number}"

where {repo_name} is the name of the repository, {run_number} is the run number of the failed check, and {job_number} is the job number of the failed check.

Configuration options

• enable_auto_checks_feedback - if set to true, the tool will automatically provide feedback when a check is failed. Default is true.
• excluded_checks_list - a list of checks to exclude from the feedback, for example: ["check1", "check2"]. Default is an empty list.
• enable_help_text - if set to true, the tool will provide a help message with the feedback. Default is true.
• persistent_comment - if set to true, the tool will overwrite a previous checks comment with the new feedback. Default is true.
• final_update_message - if persistent_comment is true and updating a previous checks message, the tool will also create a new message: "Persistent checks updated to latest commit". Default is true.

See more information about the checks tool in the docs.

[qodo-merge-pro]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Score
Enhancement	Simplify the Git diff retrieval process by using a single command for both staged and unstaged changes The _get_diff method could be improved by using a single Git command to get both staged and unstaged changes, reducing the number of subprocess calls and simplifying the code. cover_agent/PromptBuilder.py [147-169] def _get_diff(self, source_file_path): try: - # Get unstaged changes - command_unstaged = ["git", "diff", self.diff_branch, "--", source_file_path] - result_unstaged = subprocess.run( - command_unstaged, + # Get both staged and unstaged changes + command = ["git", "diff", "HEAD", self.diff_branch, "--", source_file_path] + result = subprocess.run( + command, capture_output=True, text=True, check=True ) + return result.stdout - # Get staged changes - command_staged = ["git", "diff", "--staged", self.diff_branch, "--", source_file_path] - result_staged = subprocess.run( - command_staged, - capture_output=True, - text=True, - check=True - ) - - # Combine both diffs - combined_diff = result_unstaged.stdout + result_staged.stdout - return combined_diff - Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 8 Why: This suggestion reduces the number of subprocess calls and simplifies the code, which can improve performance and maintainability. Using a single command to retrieve both staged and unstaged changes is more efficient and reduces complexity.	8
	Use a more robust regular expression pattern to extract numeric values from the diff coverage report Consider using a more robust method to extract numeric values from the diff coverage report. The current implementation assumes the presence of specific patterns and might fail if the report format changes. A more flexible approach using regular expressions with named capture groups could be more resilient to format changes. cover_agent/CoverageProcessor.py [270-278] -total_lines_match = re.search(r'Total:\s+(\d+)\s+lines', report_text) -total_lines = int(total_lines_match.group(1)) if total_lines_match else 0 +pattern = r'Total:\s+(?P<total>\d+)\s+lines.*Missing:\s+(?P<missing>\d+)\s+lines.*Coverage:\s+(?P<coverage>\d+)%' +match = re.search(pattern, report_text, re.DOTALL) +if match: + total_lines = int(match.group('total')) + missing_lines = int(match.group('missing')) + coverage_percentage = float(match.group('coverage')) / 100 +else: + total_lines = missing_lines = 0 + coverage_percentage = 0.0 -# Extract missing lines -missing_lines_match = re.search(r'Missing:\s+(\d+)\s+lines', report_text) -missing_lines = int(missing_lines_match.group(1)) if missing_lines_match else 0 - -coverage_match = re.search(r'Coverage:\s+(\d+)%', report_text) -coverage_percentage = float(coverage_match.group(1)) / 100 if coverage_match else 0.0 - Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 Why: The suggestion improves the robustness of the code by using a single regular expression with named capture groups. This makes the code more resilient to changes in the report format and reduces the risk of errors when extracting numeric values.	7
	✅ Extract the diff coverage command execution logic into a separate method to reduce code duplication and improve maintainability Suggestion Impact: The commit refactored the code to remove the duplicated logic for running the diff coverage command, integrating it into the run_coverage method. This aligns with the suggestion to reduce code duplication and improve maintainability. code diff: + # Step 2: Determine if diff coverage or full coverage processing is needed + if self.diff_coverage: + # Run the diff-cover command to generate a JSON diff coverage report + coverage_filename = os.path.basename(self.code_coverage_report_path) + coverage_command = f"diff-cover --json-report diff-cover-report.json --compare-branch={self.comparasion_branch} {coverage_filename}" + report_file_path = "diff-cover-report.json" + + # Log and execute the diff coverage command + self.logger.info(f'Running diff coverage command: "{coverage_command}"') + stdout, stderr, exit_code, _ = Runner.run_command( + command=coverage_command, cwd=self.test_command_dir + ) + + # Ensure the diff command executed successfully + assert exit_code == 0, ( + f'Fatal: Error running diff coverage command. Are you sure the command is correct? "{coverage_command}"' + f"\nExit code {exit_code}. \nStdout: \n{stdout} \nStderr: \n{stderr}" + ) + else: + # Use the standard coverage report path + report_file_path = self.code_coverage_report_path The validate_test method contains duplicated code for running the diff coverage command. Consider extracting this logic into a separate method to improve code maintainability and reduce duplication. cover_agent/UnitTestGenerator.py [603-614] if self.diff_coverage: - report_path = self.code_coverage_report_path.replace(self.test_command_dir, "") - report_path = report_path.lstrip("/") - test_command = f"diff-cover --compare-branch={self.comparasion_branch} {report_path}" - self.logger.info( - f'Running diff coverage command to generate diff coverage report: "{test_command}"' - ) - stdout, stderr, exit_code, time_of_test_command = Runner.run_command( - command=test_command, cwd=self.test_command_dir - ) + exit_code = self._run_diff_coverage_command() if exit_code != 0: break +# Add this method to the class: +def _run_diff_coverage_command(self): + report_path = self.code_coverage_report_path.replace(self.test_command_dir, "").lstrip("/") + test_command = f"diff-cover --compare-branch={self.comparasion_branch} {report_path}" + self.logger.info(f'Running diff coverage command to generate diff coverage report: "{test_command}"') + stdout, stderr, exit_code, _ = Runner.run_command(command=test_command, cwd=self.test_command_dir) + return exit_code + Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 6 Why: The suggestion enhances code maintainability by reducing duplication. Extracting the diff coverage command execution into a separate method makes the code cleaner and easier to manage, although the impact on functionality is minimal.	6

💡 Need additional feedback ? start a PR chat

[liyuyun-lyy]

really need this feature👍