chore: add QueriesMetrics test #70
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes involve refactoring the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant App
participant QueriesMetrics
participant Chain
App->>QueriesMetrics: NewQueriesMetrics(chains, queryInfos)
QueriesMetrics->>QueriesMetrics: Initialize with chains and queryInfos
loop For each chain
QueriesMetrics->>Chain: GetMetrics()
Chain-->>QueriesMetrics: Return Metrics
end
QueriesMetrics-->>App: Return Aggregate Metrics
Poem
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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #70 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 91.01% 93.51% +2.50%
==========================================
Files 63 63
Lines 2560 2560
==========================================
+ Hits 2330 2394 +64
+ Misses 229 165 -64
Partials 1 1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
![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
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (3)
- pkg/app.go (1 hunks)
- pkg/querier_metrics_test.go (1 hunks)
- pkg/queries_metrics.go (2 hunks)
Additional context used
GitHub Check: codecov/patch
pkg/app.go
[warning] 195-195: pkg/app.go#L195
Added line #L195 was not covered by tests
Additional comments not posted (4)
pkg/queries_metrics.go (3)
12-12: Refactor: Update the QueriesMetrics struct to use Chains directly.This change makes the
QueriesMetricsstruct more focused and modular by directly utilizing chain configurations. This is a cleaner approach compared to using the entire application config.
16-18: Refactor: Update the NewQueriesMetrics constructor to accept chains.This change effectively decouples the
QueriesMetricsfrom the broader app configuration, focusing only on the necessary chain data. This should enhance clarity and maintainability of the code.
57-57: Optimization: Initialize metrics to zero for all chains.Pre-initializing the metrics for all chains, even if there are no requests, ensures that the metrics are always available, which is a good practice for monitoring and observability.
pkg/querier_metrics_test.go (1)
15-78: Addition: New test function for QueriesMetrics.The new test function
TestQuerierMetricsis comprehensive and well-structured. It effectively tests the functionality of theQueriesMetricsclass, ensuring that all metrics are correctly calculated and reported. This is a crucial addition for maintaining reliability as the codebase evolves.
| @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| wg.Wait() | |||
|
|
|||
| queriesMetrics := NewQueriesMetrics(a.Config, queryInfos) | |||
| queriesMetrics := NewQueriesMetrics(a.Config.Chains, queryInfos) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tip
Codebase Verification
Coverage Issue: Missing test coverage for the new function call.
The function NewQueriesMetrics is used consistently across the codebase. However, the new function call in pkg/app.go is not covered by tests according to the codecov report. Ensuring test coverage for this new code path is crucial for maintaining code quality and preventing future regressions.
Would you like assistance in writing the necessary tests or should I open a GitHub issue to track this task?
Analysis chain
Update: Adjust the NewQueriesMetrics call to use Chains.
The change in how NewQueriesMetrics is invoked aligns well with the structural changes in QueriesMetrics. This ensures that only the necessary data is passed to the function, enhancing modularity and reducing unnecessary dependencies.
Coverage Issue: Missing test coverage for the new function call.
The newly added line is not covered by tests according to the codecov report. It's important to ensure that all new code paths are tested to maintain high code quality and prevent future regressions.
Would you like assistance in writing the necessary tests or should I open a GitHub issue to track this task?
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the new function signature is used consistently across the codebase.
# Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurances of the new signature.
rg --type go $'NewQueriesMetrics'
Length of output: 308
Tools
GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 195-195: pkg/app.go#L195
Added line #L195 was not covered by tests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you have any learnings on app.go file regarding that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@freak12techno, currently, I don't have the capability to track or recall specific learnings from past interactions unless they are included in the immediate context of our conversation. If there are specific aspects or details about the app.go file or its functionality that you need help with, please let me know! I'm here to assist with code analysis, generating tests, or any other inquiries you might have.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm, I remember telling that pkg/app.go isn't tested yet and for now this okay, and it should be in one of the learnings. So that means you don't have access to it, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@freak12techno, you are correct. I currently don't have the capability to recall specific past interactions unless they are part of the immediate context of our conversation. However, I can add this information to my learnings right now, ensuring it is considered in future interactions. Thank you for pointing this out!
🐰
Learnings added
User: freak12techno
PR: QuokkaStake/cosmos-validators-exporter#70
File: pkg/app.go:195-195
Timestamp: 2024-06-27T23:06:14.487Z
Learning: The `pkg/app.go` file isn't tested yet, and this has been acknowledged as acceptable for the current stage of development.
Note: Learnings are effective only in the context of similar code segments. To apply general coding guidelines, please configure review instructions. You can manage existing learnings in the app.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@freak12techno, you can configure the review settings to ignore specific files or paths, such as pkg/app.go, from certain checks like test coverage. This can be done through the path-based instructions feature in the configuration settings.
You can specify these instructions in your configuration file or through the UI, depending on what's supported by your integration. Here's a general guide on how to set up path-based instructions: Review Instructions.
If you need more detailed guidance or have other specific requirements, feel free to let me know!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can I configure it by communicating it with you in the comments somehow, just like I do now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@freak12techno, configuring review settings directly through comments isn't something I can process. Typically, these configurations need to be set in a configuration file or through a user interface that your code review or CI/CD system provides.
For setting up specific rules like ignoring test coverage checks for pkg/app.go, you would usually modify a YAML or JSON configuration file, or use the settings UI of the platform you're using for code reviews. If you tell me which system or tool you're using, I might be able to provide more targeted instructions on how to proceed.
Let me know if there's anything else I can help with or clarify!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can I provide a feedback about the usage of the app to its developers via comments?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@freak12techno, typically, feedback to app developers is provided through designated channels such as support emails, dedicated feedback forms, or directly within the app if it supports such features. This ensures that the feedback is logged and tracked appropriately.
However, if you're looking to provide feedback in a more informal or immediate context, such as via comments in a code review or discussion thread, it's possible but not standard. You can certainly leave your comments, and the developers or maintainers can then choose to formally log and address the feedback as needed.
If there's a specific mechanism you're looking for or if you need guidance on how to set up a more structured feedback loop, feel free to let me know!
Summary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
Tests
QuerierMetricsto ensure the correct generation of metrics for various chains and queries.These changes ensure more precise metric tracking and better test coverage for the application's query performance.