Implements motor route tests #38
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request involve modifications to several files, primarily focusing on the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Warning Rate limit exceeded@GabrielBarberini has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 20 minutes and 16 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
GabrielBarberini
force-pushed
the
refactor_tests
branch
from
744abab to
8e9e4b1
Compare
|
I just realized Im missing 4
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 13
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (9)
Makefile (1)
13-13: Document disabled pylint error codesConsider adding comments to document why these specific error codes are disabled for tests:
- E0401 (import-error)
- W0621 (redefined-outer-name)
- pylint --disable=E0401,W0621 ./tests || true + # E0401: Disable import errors in tests (common with pytest fixtures) + # W0621: Disable redefined-outer-name (required for pytest fixture usage) + pylint --disable=E0401,W0621 ./tests || truelib/views/rocket.py (2)
41-43: Configuration update looks good, but consider type specificityThe migration to
model_configwithConfigDictis correct and addresses the Pydantic deprecation warnings. However, usingAnyas a catch-all type for JSON encoding might be too broad.Consider being more specific about which types need custom encoding. For example:
model_config = ConfigDict( - json_encoders={Any: to_python_primitive} + json_encoders={ + numpy.ndarray: to_python_primitive, + scipy.interpolate.interpolate.interp1d: to_python_primitive, + # Add other specific types as needed + } )This would make the encoding behavior more predictable and maintainable.
Line range hint
8-40: Consider improving type safety across the modelThe model uses
Optional[Any]extensively for fields that appear to represent specific types of data (e.g., numerical values, functions, tensors). This reduces type safety and makes the code more prone to runtime errors.Consider:
- Using more specific types for numerical values (e.g.,
float,numpy.ndarray)- Creating custom types for complex objects like functions and tensors
- Adding validation using Pydantic's field validators
This would improve:
- Type safety
- Code documentation
- IDE support
- Runtime error prevention
Would you like help creating specific type definitions for these fields?
lib/views/environment.py (2)
52-54: Consider additional model configuration optionsThe migration to Pydantic v2's
model_configis correct. However, consider adding these beneficial configuration options:
frozen=Trueto make the model immutableextra='forbid'to catch field name typosmodel_config = ConfigDict( - json_encoders={Any: to_python_primitive} + json_encoders={Any: to_python_primitive}, + frozen=True, + extra='forbid' )
Line range hint
8-51: Consider improving type safety in future updatesThe model uses many
Optional[Any]type hints, which reduces type safety. Consider creating a separate issue to:
- Replace
Anywith more specific types where possible- Document why
Anyis necessary for fields where it can't be avoidedlib/views/flight.py (2)
Line range hint
9-153: Consider using more specific types for physical quantitiesThe extensive use of
Optional[Any]reduces type safety. Consider using more specific types for physical quantities:
- Use
floatfor measurements (e.g.,altitude,speed,acceleration)- Use
intfor counts and indices- Use
list[float]for vector quantities- Consider creating custom types for complex physical quantities
This would improve:
- Type safety
- Runtime validation
- Code documentation
- IDE support
Example refactor for a few fields:
class FlightSummary(RocketSummary, EnvSummary): - altitude: Optional[Any] = None - speed: Optional[Any] = None - acceleration: Optional[Any] = None + altitude: Optional[float] = None + speed: Optional[float] = None + acceleration: Optional[float] = None
Line range hint
159-171: Add docstrings to response modelsThe response models are well-structured but would benefit from documentation explaining their usage and the meaning of flight_id.
Example:
class FlightCreated(BaseModel): + """Response model for successful flight creation. + + Attributes: + flight_id: Unique identifier of the created flight + message: Success message returned to the client + """ flight_id: str message: str = "Flight successfully created"tests/test_routes/test_motors_route.py (1)
21-40: Consider enhancing test fixtures with more realistic test data.While the current fixtures provide basic test data, consider adding more realistic values and edge cases. This could help catch potential issues with data validation and processing.
@pytest.fixture def stub_motor(): motor = Motor( - thrust_source=[[0, 0]], - burn_time=0, - nozzle_radius=0, - dry_mass=0, - dry_inertia=[0, 0, 0], - center_of_dry_mass_position=0, + thrust_source=[[0, 0], [1, 100], [2, 50], [3, 0]], # More realistic thrust curve + burn_time=3.0, + nozzle_radius=0.05, + dry_mass=1.5, + dry_inertia=[0.1, 0.1, 0.05], + center_of_dry_mass_position=0.25, ) motor_json = motor.model_dump_json() return json.loads(motor_json)lib/controllers/motor.py (1)
168-170: Adjust method signature for consistency and clarityThe
update_motor_by_idmethod has been converted to a class method. Ensure that this change is consistently reflected throughout the codebase, and consider whether all class methods are necessary or if some could be static methods for clarity.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
Makefile(1 hunks)lib/controllers/motor.py(3 hunks)lib/routes/motor.py(2 hunks)lib/views/environment.py(2 hunks)lib/views/flight.py(2 hunks)lib/views/motor.py(2 hunks)lib/views/rocket.py(2 hunks)tests/test_routes/test_motors_route.py(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (10)
Makefile (1)
12-12: Verify impact of removing Pydantic whitelist
Removing --extension-pkg-whitelist='pydantic' might be contributing to the 286 warnings mentioned in the PR results. While this aligns with addressing Pydantic deprecation warnings, we should verify the nature of these warnings.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to verify the impact by checking the codebase for Pydantic usage first.
Removing Pydantic whitelist is appropriate
The codebase shows extensive legitimate use of Pydantic throughout the models and views, with proper imports and class definitions using BaseModel. Removing the whitelist is the correct approach because:
- Pydantic is a core dependency, not a third-party extension that needs whitelisting
- The codebase follows standard Pydantic patterns (BaseModel inheritance, ConfigDict usage)
- Warnings should be visible to properly handle any Pydantic deprecations mentioned in the PR objectives
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check the impact of removing Pydantic whitelist
# Expected: List of Pydantic-related warnings that were previously suppressed
# Run pylint on lib directory and filter for Pydantic-related messages
pylint ./lib 2>&1 | grep -i "pydantic"
# Get a count of warnings by type to understand the distribution
pylint ./lib 2>&1 | grep "^.*: " | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr
Length of output: 173
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for Pydantic imports and usage in the codebase
echo "=== Checking for Pydantic imports ==="
rg "from pydantic" -A 2
echo -e "\n=== Checking for Pydantic base model usage ==="
rg "class.*\(.*BaseModel"
echo -e "\n=== Checking for any other Pydantic references ==="
rg "pydantic" --type py
Length of output: 4108
lib/views/rocket.py (1)
2-2: LGTM: Import change aligns with Pydantic updates
The addition of ConfigDict import supports the migration from deprecated Config class to the new model_config style.
lib/views/environment.py (1)
3-3: LGTM: Correct import for Pydantic v2 configuration
The addition of ConfigDict import is appropriate for the migration to Pydantic v2 style configuration.
lib/routes/motor.py (2)
41-41: LGTM: Controller method call updated correctly
The change to use the static method MotorController.create_motor() aligns with the controller refactoring while maintaining proper handling of the motor kind.
71-71: LGTM: Update method call aligned with create_motor pattern
The change to use the static method MotorController.update_motor_by_id() maintains consistency with the create_motor pattern and properly handles the motor parameters.
lib/views/motor.py (2)
2-2: LGTM! Proper import for Pydantic v2 compatibility
The addition of ConfigDict import aligns with Pydantic's recommended approach for model configuration.
72-74: LGTM! Proper migration to Pydantic v2 configuration
The change from Config class to model_config with ConfigDict follows Pydantic's recommended approach for v2, while maintaining the same JSON encoding behavior.
Let's verify that this change resolves the deprecation warnings:
✅ Verification successful
✓ Configuration change is consistent across the codebase
The verification shows that all view files (motor.py, rocket.py, flight.py, and environment.py) have been properly migrated to use Pydantic v2's model_config = ConfigDict() pattern. No old-style Config classes remain in the codebase, and all files maintain consistent configuration with the same JSON encoder setup.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for remaining Pydantic Config class usage or deprecation warnings
# Search for any remaining old-style Config class usage
echo "Checking for remaining Config class usage..."
rg -l "class Config"
# Search for Pydantic deprecation warning suppressions that might be removable now
echo "Checking for warning suppressions..."
rg -l "ignore.*pydantic.*deprecat"
Length of output: 241
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search for Pydantic configuration patterns
echo "Checking for Pydantic configuration patterns..."
rg -l "Config|model_config|ConfigDict" --type py
# Search for any Pydantic imports to identify relevant files
echo "Checking Pydantic imports..."
rg -l "from pydantic|import pydantic" --type py
# Look for any remaining deprecation-related comments
echo "Checking for deprecation comments..."
rg "deprecat.*pydantic|pydantic.*deprecat" --type py
Length of output: 718
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the configuration patterns in the identified files
echo "Checking motor.py configuration..."
rg -A 5 "model_config|Config" lib/views/motor.py
echo "Checking other view files configuration..."
rg -A 5 "model_config|Config" lib/views/rocket.py lib/views/flight.py lib/views/environment.py
# Check if there are any remaining old-style Config classes
echo "Checking for old-style Config classes..."
ast-grep --pattern 'class Config:
$$$'
Length of output: 2524
lib/views/flight.py (2)
2-2: LGTM: Configuration updated to Pydantic v2 standards
The migration from Config class to model_config with ConfigDict follows Pydantic v2 best practices and successfully addresses deprecation warnings.
Also applies to: 154-156
Line range hint 174-175: LGTM: View model correctly implements type override
The FlightView class properly extends the base Flight model and correctly overrides the rocket field with the view-specific type.
tests/test_routes/test_motors_route.py (1)
1-18: LGTM! Well-organized imports and proper test client setup.
The imports are comprehensive and properly organized, covering all necessary dependencies for the test suite.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like the motor tests are making assertions for the generic Motor class only. I wonder if you plan to make other tests to cover specific details of Hybrid/liquid/solid motors, just to make sure these kind of motors can be created.
All in all it's just another brilliant PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
tests/test_routes/test_environments_route.py (5)
19-31: Consider enhancing test fixtures with more comprehensive test dataWhile the current fixtures provide basic test data, consider expanding them to cover more edge cases and field combinations. This would help ensure thorough testing of the environment model's validation rules.
Example enhancement:
@pytest.fixture(params=[ {'latitude': 0, 'longitude': 0}, # minimal case {'latitude': 90, 'longitude': 180, 'elevation': 1000}, # boundary values {'latitude': -90, 'longitude': -180, 'date': '2021-01-01T00:00:00'}, # with date # Add more test cases as needed ]) def stub_env(request): env = Env(**request.param) env_json = env.model_dump_json() return json.loads(env_json)
33-166: Consider adding tests for additional edge casesWhile the CRUD operation tests are well-structured, consider adding tests for:
- Concurrent operations on the same environment
- Validation of field constraints (e.g., latitude/longitude ranges)
- Partial updates with optional fields
- Rate limiting scenarios
Example test for partial updates:
def test_update_env_partial(stub_env): partial_update = {'latitude': 45} # Only update latitude with patch.object( EnvController, 'update_env_by_id', return_value=EnvUpdated(env_id='123'), ) as mock_update_env: response = client.patch('/environments/123', json=partial_update) assert response.status_code == 200 mock_update_env.assert_called_once()
196-231: Add tests for simulation parameters and optionsThe current simulation tests cover basic functionality, but consider adding tests for:
- Different simulation parameters
- Time-based simulations
- Simulation progress tracking
- Large dataset handling
Example test with simulation parameters:
def test_simulate_env_with_parameters(): params = { 'start_time': 0, 'end_time': 100, 'time_step': 0.1 } with patch.object( EnvController, 'simulate_env', return_value=EnvSummary(), ) as mock_simulate_env: response = client.get('/environments/123/summary', params=params) assert response.status_code == 200 mock_simulate_env.assert_called_once_with('123', **params)
233-266: Enhance binary data retrieval testsConsider adding tests for:
- Large binary data handling
- Different binary formats
- Streaming responses
- Compression handling
Example test for large binary data:
def test_read_rocketpy_env_large_binary(): large_binary = b'x' * (10 * 1024 * 1024) # 10MB with patch.object( EnvController, 'get_rocketpy_env_binary', return_value=large_binary ) as mock_read_rocketpy_env: response = client.get('/environments/123/rocketpy') assert response.status_code == 203 assert len(response.content) == len(large_binary) assert response.headers['content-type'] == 'application/octet-stream' assert 'content-length' in response.headers
1-266: Overall excellent test implementation with room for enhancementThe test suite is well-structured and provides good coverage of the environment routes API. The use of fixtures, mocking, and error case handling demonstrates solid testing practices. While the basic functionality is well-covered, consider implementing the suggested enhancements to achieve even more robust test coverage.
Key strengths:
- Comprehensive CRUD operation testing
- Proper error handling coverage
- Well-organized test structure
- Good use of pytest fixtures and mocking
Consider implementing property-based testing using libraries like
hypothesisfor more thorough validation of input ranges and combinations.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
lib/views/environment.py(2 hunks)lib/views/flight.py(2 hunks)lib/views/motor.py(2 hunks)lib/views/rocket.py(2 hunks)tests/test_routes/test_environments_route.py(1 hunks)tests/test_routes/test_motors_route.py(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (5)
- lib/views/environment.py
- lib/views/flight.py
- lib/views/motor.py
- lib/views/rocket.py
- tests/test_routes/test_motors_route.py
🔇 Additional comments (1)
tests/test_routes/test_environments_route.py (1)
1-16: LGTM! Well-organized test setup
The imports are comprehensive and properly organized, covering all necessary testing dependencies. The TestClient initialization is correct for FastAPI testing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
lib/controllers/motor.py (3)
39-42: Update method docstring to reflect new signatureThe conversion to a class method with explicit
motorparameter is a good improvement. However, the docstring should be updated to document the new parameter.@classmethod async def create_motor( cls, motor: Motor ) -> Union[MotorCreated, HTTPException]: """ Create a models.Motor in the database. + + Args: + motor: Motor model to be created Returns: views.MotorCreated """
165-167: Update method docstring to reflect new signatureThe conversion to a class method with explicit parameters is good, but the docstring needs to be updated to document all parameters.
@classmethod async def update_motor_by_id( cls, motor_id: str, motor: Motor ) -> Union[MotorUpdated, HTTPException]: """ Update a motor in the database. Args: motor_id: str + motor: Updated motor model Returns: views.MotorUpdated Raises: HTTP 404 Not Found: If the motor is not found in the database. """
Line range hint
39-183: Excellent architectural improvementThe conversion from instance methods to class methods is a positive architectural change that:
- Removes unnecessary instance state
- Makes dependencies explicit in method signatures
- Maintains consistent error handling and logging
- Improves testability by reducing state management
The refactoring aligns well with functional programming principles and makes the code more maintainable.
lib/controllers/rocket.py (1)
33-36: Consider changingguardto a@classmethodfor consistencyCurrently,
guardis a@staticmethodbut is invoked usingcls.guard(rocket). For consistency and clarity, consider changingguardto a@classmethod.Apply this diff to make the change:
- @staticmethod + @classmethod def guard(rocket: Rocket): MotorController.guard(rocket.motor)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
lib/controllers/environment.py(0 hunks)lib/controllers/flight.py(3 hunks)lib/controllers/motor.py(3 hunks)lib/controllers/rocket.py(3 hunks)lib/routes/flight.py(2 hunks)lib/routes/rocket.py(2 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- lib/controllers/environment.py
🔇 Additional comments (11)
lib/routes/rocket.py (2)
44-44: LGTM! Verify error handling with the new class method approach.
The change to use class methods is consistent with the broader controller refactoring and simplifies the code.
Let's verify the error handling in the new class method implementation:
✅ Verification successful
Error handling is properly implemented in the class method approach
The verification shows that RocketController.create_rocket maintains robust error handling:
- Validates input using the
guardmethod - Uses a try-catch block to handle database operations
- Properly catches and logs PyMongoError exceptions
- Raises appropriate HTTPException on errors
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if RocketController.create_rocket properly handles errors
# Look for try/except blocks or error handling in the controller
ast-grep --pattern 'class RocketController {
$$$
@classmethod
async def create_rocket($_) {
try {
$$$
} $$$
}
$$$
}'
Length of output: 142
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to check error handling in Python files
# First, let's locate the RocketController class implementation
rg -A 10 "class RocketController"
# Also search for create_rocket method specifically
rg -A 10 "async def create_rocket"
Length of output: 2243
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's see the complete implementation of create_rocket in the controller
# to verify error handling
rg -B 5 -A 15 "async def create_rocket" lib/controllers/rocket.py
Length of output: 707
76-76: LGTM! The change maintains consistency across the codebase.
The update endpoint follows the same class method pattern as create_rocket, maintaining a consistent approach throughout the codebase.
Let's verify the error handling in the update method:
✅ Verification successful
Error handling is properly implemented in the update method
The verification confirms that update_rocket_by_id follows proper error handling patterns:
- Validates input using the
guardmethod - Uses a try-except block to handle database operations
- Properly handles specific exceptions:
PyMongoErrorfor database issues (503 Service Unavailable)- Re-raises
HTTPException - Catches and logs generic exceptions
- Uses context manager (
async with) for repository operations
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if RocketController.update_rocket_by_id properly handles errors
# Look for try/except blocks or error handling in the controller
ast-grep --pattern 'class RocketController {
$$$
@classmethod
async def update_rocket_by_id($_) {
try {
$$$
} $$$
}
$$$
}'
Length of output: 148
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find the update_rocket_by_id implementation
# First, let's search for the class and method definition in Python files
rg -t py "class RocketController" -A 20
Length of output: 1064
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's search specifically for the update_rocket_by_id method
rg -t py "async def update_rocket_by_id" -B 2 -A 15
Length of output: 1960
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's see the complete implementation of update_rocket_by_id in the controller
# including the try-except block and error handling
rg -t py "async def update_rocket_by_id" -B 2 -A 30 lib/controllers/rocket.py
Length of output: 1180
lib/routes/flight.py (3)
46-46: LGTM! Clean refactor to static method call.
The change simplifies the code by removing unnecessary controller instantiation while maintaining the same functionality.
149-149: LGTM! Consistent refactor to static method call.
The change maintains consistency with other refactored endpoints and properly handles the parameter order.
Line range hint 1-179: Verify consistent refactoring across route files.
The changes to static method calls look good. Let's verify that similar refactoring was applied consistently across other route files.
✅ Verification successful
Static method call refactoring has been consistently applied across all route files
The verification shows that all route files (flight.py, rocket.py, environment.py, and motor.py) consistently use static method calls to their respective controllers. No instances of controller instantiations were found, confirming successful refactoring across the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if other route files have been consistently refactored to use static method calls
# Search for controller instantiations in route files
echo "Checking for remaining controller instantiations in route files:"
rg -l "Controller\([^)]*\)\." "lib/routes/"
# Search for static method calls pattern
echo -e "\nVerifying static method call pattern:"
rg "Controller\." "lib/routes/"
Length of output: 2588
lib/controllers/motor.py (2)
50-51: LGTM: Proper class method usage
The guard call has been correctly updated to use the class method syntax.
182-183: LGTM: Proper class method usage
The guard call has been correctly updated to use the class method syntax.
lib/controllers/rocket.py (4)
33-36: Conversion to class method is appropriate
The create_rocket method has been correctly converted to a @classmethod with appropriate parameter adjustments.
44-45: Consistent invocation of guard method
Using cls.guard(rocket) within the class method maintains consistency and is appropriate.
164-166: Update of update_rocket_by_id to class method
The update_rocket_by_id method has been successfully updated to a class method with the correct parameters.
181-182: Consistent invocation of guard method
The call to cls.guard(rocket) within the update_rocket_by_id method is appropriate and maintains consistency.
Yep, I noticed it as well: #38 (comment) I'll add an extra commit to add tests for the missing motor kinds and tank types, thanks for noticing |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (8)
lib/models/motor.py (2)
56-61: Consider adding validation for mass flow parametersWhile the default values are appropriate, consider adding validation to ensure consistency between related parameters. For example, if
initial_liquid_massis set, you might want to validate that eitherliquid_mass_flow_rate_inorliquid_mass_flow_rate_outis also set.@validator('initial_liquid_mass') def validate_liquid_mass_flow(cls, v, values): if v is not None and values.get('liquid_mass_flow_rate_in') is None and values.get('liquid_mass_flow_rate_out') is None: raise ValueError('When initial_liquid_mass is set, either liquid_mass_flow_rate_in or liquid_mass_flow_rate_out should be set') return v
67-70: Consider adding validation for tank_kindThe default value for
tank_kindis set toTankKinds.MASS_FLOW, but it might be better to determine this dynamically based on which parameters are set. Consider adding validation to automatically set the appropriate tank kind.@validator('tank_kind', always=True) def determine_tank_kind(cls, v, values): if values.get('liquid_height') is not None: return TankKinds.LEVEL if values.get('ullage') is not None: return TankKinds.ULLAGE if values.get('liquid_mass') is not None or values.get('gas_mass') is not None: return TankKinds.MASS if any(values.get(k) is not None for k in ['gas_mass_flow_rate_in', 'gas_mass_flow_rate_out', 'liquid_mass_flow_rate_in', 'liquid_mass_flow_rate_out']): return TankKinds.MASS_FLOW return vlib/controllers/motor.py (2)
39-42: Add parameter validation for motorWhile the method signature has been properly updated to a class method, consider adding parameter validation to ensure
motoris not None before proceeding with the operation.@classmethod async def create_motor( cls, motor: Motor ) -> Union[MotorCreated, HTTPException]: + if motor is None: + raise HTTPException( + status_code=status.HTTP_422_UNPROCESSABLE_ENTITY, + detail="Motor data is required", + )
167-169: Update docstring to reflect new motor parameterThe method signature has been updated to include the
motorparameter, but the docstring doesn't reflect this change.""" Update a motor in the database. Args: motor_id: str + motor: Motor object containing the updated data Returns: views.MotorUpdatedlib/controllers/rocket.py (2)
Line range hint
166-184: Update docstring to include the new rocket parameter.The docstring is missing documentation for the
rocketparameter that was added in the signature change.Apply this diff to update the docstring:
""" Update a models.Rocket in the database. Args: + rocket: Rocket model instance to update with rocket_id: str Returns: views.RocketUpdated
Binary serialization needs size limits and error handling
Based on the verification results, there are several concerns:
- No size limits or validation checks before serialization using
dill.dumps- No error handling for potential memory issues during serialization
- No chunking mechanism for large rocket configurations
- The only compression appears to be at the HTTP response level via gzip
Key locations that need attention:
lib/services/rocket.py: Add size validation and error handling inget_rocket_binary()lib/controllers/rocket.py: Add error handling for serialization failures🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
166-184: Verify binary serialization limits for large rockets.The
get_rocketpy_rocket_binarymethod might need size limits or chunking for large rocket configurations to prevent memory issues.Let's check the codebase for any existing size limits or similar binary serialization patterns:
Let me search for more context about the binary serialization implementation and any potential memory management patterns.
Let me check one more aspect - the actual implementation of the serialization and any error handling around it.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for binary serialization patterns and size limits rg -A 3 "get_rocket_binary|dill.dumps" # Look for any configuration related to size limits rg -A 3 "MAX_SIZE|size_limit|LIMIT"Length of output: 1336
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Look for memory management patterns and configurations rg -A 5 "memory|buffer|chunk" # Check if there are any size checks or validations before serialization ast-grep --pattern 'def get_rocket_binary($$$) { $$$ }' # Look for any configuration files that might contain limits fd -e yaml -e json -e ini -e conf -e toml --exec cat {}Length of output: 3599
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check the implementation of rocket binary serialization ast-grep --pattern 'class RocketService { $$$ }' # Look for any error handling or size-related exceptions rg -A 5 "raise|except" lib/services/rocket.pyLength of output: 315
lib/controllers/flight.py (2)
Line range hint
53-76: Consider centralizing error handling logicThe error handling pattern is repeated across multiple methods. Consider extracting this into a decorator or utility method to reduce code duplication and maintain consistency.
Example implementation:
from functools import wraps from typing import Callable, TypeVar T = TypeVar('T') def handle_flight_errors(operation_name: str) -> Callable: def decorator(func: Callable[..., T]) -> Callable[..., T]: @wraps(func) async def wrapper(*args, **kwargs) -> T: try: return await func(*args, **kwargs) except PyMongoError as e: logger.error(f"controllers.flight.{operation_name}: PyMongoError {e}") raise HTTPException( status_code=status.HTTP_503_SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE, detail=f"Failed to {operation_name} in db", ) from e except HTTPException as e: raise e from e except Exception as e: exc_str = parse_error(e) logger.error(f"controllers.flight.{operation_name}: {exc_str}") raise HTTPException( status_code=status.HTTP_500_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR, detail=f"Failed to {operation_name}: {exc_str}", ) from e return wrapper return decorator
43-46: Consider enhancing input validation documentationWhile the code structure is good, the error scenarios and input validation requirements could be better documented. Consider adding:
- Expected error scenarios in docstrings
- Input validation requirements
- Example usage with different scenarios
Example docstring enhancement:
@classmethod async def create_flight( cls, flight: Flight ) -> Union[FlightCreated, HTTPException]: """ Create a flight in the database. Args: flight: Flight model instance with validated data Returns: FlightCreated: Contains the ID of the created flight Raises: HTTPException(503): When database operations fail HTTPException(500): When flight creation fails due to invalid data HTTPException(400): When input validation fails Example: ```python flight = Flight(rocket=rocket, environment=env) result = await FlightController.create_flight(flight) ``` """Also applies to: 180-182
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
lib/controllers/environment.py(2 hunks)lib/controllers/flight.py(4 hunks)lib/controllers/motor.py(4 hunks)lib/controllers/rocket.py(4 hunks)lib/models/motor.py(1 hunks)tests/test_routes/test_motors_route.py(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- lib/controllers/environment.py
- tests/test_routes/test_motors_route.py
🔇 Additional comments (8)
lib/models/motor.py (3)
49-49: LGTM: Appropriate default value for optional parameter
The addition of None as the default value for liquid_height is correct and aligns with Python's best practices for optional parameters.
52-53: LGTM: Appropriate default values for mass parameters
The addition of None as default values for liquid_mass and gas_mass is correct and maintains consistency with other optional parameters.
64-64: LGTM: Appropriate default value for ullage parameter
The addition of None as the default value for ullage is correct and consistent with the optional parameter pattern.
lib/controllers/motor.py (1)
184-185: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Apply consistent error handling patterns
For consistency with the create_motor method, initialize motor_repo before the try block and add a null check in the finally block. Also consider adding parameter validation for the motor argument.
+ if motor is None:
+ raise HTTPException(
+ status_code=status.HTTP_422_UNPROCESSABLE_ENTITY,
+ detail="Motor data is required",
+ )
+ motor_repo = None
try:
cls.guard(motor)
async with MotorRepository(motor) as motor_repo:
await motor_repo.update_motor_by_id(motor_id)
# ...
finally:
+ if motor_repo:
logger.info(
f"Call to controllers.motor.update_motor completed for Motor {motor_id}"
)Likely invalid or redundant comment.
lib/controllers/rocket.py (2)
Line range hint 33-69: Well-structured refactoring of create_rocket method!
The conversion to a class method with direct parameter passing improves the design by:
- Eliminating unnecessary instance state
- Maintaining comprehensive error handling
- Following proper context manager patterns
Line range hint 43-66: Robust error handling implementation!
The error handling pattern is well-structured with:
- Proper exception hierarchy (PyMongoError → HTTPException → general exceptions)
- Consistent error logging with appropriate detail
- Clean resource management using context managers
lib/controllers/flight.py (2)
43-46: LGTM! Good refactoring to class method
The conversion from instance method to class method improves the code by removing unnecessary instance state while maintaining functionality.
Line range hint 180-198: LGTM! Consistent method refactoring
The update method changes follow the same pattern as create_flight:
- Accepts Flight object directly
- Validates input using guard
- Uses async context manager properly
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (9)
lib/models/motor.py (3)
49-67: Consider adding parameter validation and documentation.While the optional parameters are well-organized and properly typed, consider enhancing the implementation with:
- Field validation for numeric parameters (e.g., non-negative values for mass, height)
- Documentation for valid value ranges and parameter interdependencies
Example implementation:
from pydantic import Field, field_validator class MotorTank(BaseModel): # Level based tank parameters liquid_height: Optional[float] = Field( default=None, description="Height of liquid in the tank", ge=0 # greater than or equal to 0 ) @field_validator('liquid_mass', 'gas_mass', 'initial_liquid_mass', 'initial_gas_mass') def validate_mass(cls, v): if v is not None and v < 0: raise ValueError("Mass values must be non-negative") return v
Line range hint
82-97: Add motor type-specific validation and documentation.The parameters are well-organized by motor types, but consider adding:
- Motor type-specific validation to ensure required parameters are set based on
motor_kind- Documentation for parameter relationships and constraints
Example implementation:
from pydantic import Field, model_validator from typing import Dict, Set class Motor(BaseModel): # Add field metadata chamber_radius: Optional[float] = Field( default=None, description="Radius of the combustion chamber", ge=0 ) # Define required fields per motor type REQUIRED_FIELDS: Dict[MotorKinds, Set[str]] = { MotorKinds.LIQUID: {'tanks'}, MotorKinds.SOLID: { 'grain_number', 'grain_density', 'grain_outer_radius', 'grain_initial_inner_radius', 'grain_initial_height' }, MotorKinds.HYBRID: {'throat_radius'}, MotorKinds.GENERIC: {'chamber_radius', 'chamber_height'} } @model_validator(mode='after') def validate_motor_type(self) -> 'Motor': required_fields = self.REQUIRED_FIELDS[self.motor_kind] missing_fields = [ field for field in required_fields if getattr(self, field) is None ] if missing_fields: raise ValueError( f"Motor type {self.motor_kind} requires {missing_fields}" ) return self
Line range hint
106-112: Consider using Pydantic's computed fields for motor_kind.The current implementation uses a private attribute with getter/setter methods. Consider using Pydantic's
computed_fielddecorator for a more idiomatic approach.Example implementation:
from pydantic import computed_field class Motor(BaseModel): _motor_kind: MotorKinds = MotorKinds.SOLID @computed_field @property def motor_kind(self) -> MotorKinds: return self._motor_kind @motor_kind.setter def motor_kind(self, value: MotorKinds) -> None: self._motor_kind = valuelib/controllers/motor.py (1)
167-169: Update docstring to include new motor parameterThe docstring should be updated to reflect the new motor parameter:
""" Update a motor in the database. Args: motor_id: str + motor: Motor - The motor data to update with Returns: views.MotorUpdatedlib/controllers/rocket.py (2)
Line range hint
166-184: Update docstring to include the newrocketparameter.The method has been correctly refactored to a class method, but the docstring needs to be updated to document the new
rocketparameter.Apply this diff to update the docstring:
""" Update a models.Rocket in the database. Args: + rocket: Rocket model containing the update data rocket_id: str Returns: views.RocketUpdated
Line range hint
33-184: Excellent architectural improvements through consistent refactoring.The conversion of methods to class methods across the controller improves the design by:
- Eliminating unnecessary instance state
- Making the code more functional and easier to test
- Maintaining consistent error handling patterns
- Following the single responsibility principle
This aligns well with best practices for controller design in FastAPI applications.
lib/controllers/flight.py (3)
180-182: Update docstring to include theflightparameter.The docstring is missing documentation for the
flightparameter which is required for the method.Update the docstring to include:
Args: + flight: Flight model to update flight_id: strAlso applies to: 197-198
Line range hint
43-79: Consider extracting common error handling logic.The error handling patterns are duplicated across methods. Consider creating a decorator or utility method to handle common error patterns.
Example implementation:
from functools import wraps from typing import Callable, TypeVar T = TypeVar('T') def handle_flight_errors(operation_name: str) -> Callable: def decorator(func: Callable[..., T]) -> Callable[..., T]: @wraps(func) async def wrapper(*args, **kwargs) -> T: try: return await func(*args, **kwargs) except PyMongoError as e: logger.error(f"controllers.flight.{operation_name}: PyMongoError {e}") raise HTTPException( status_code=status.HTTP_503_SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE, detail=f"Failed to {operation_name} in db", ) from e except HTTPException as e: raise e from e except Exception as e: exc_str = parse_error(e) logger.error(f"controllers.flight.{operation_name}: {exc_str}") raise HTTPException( status_code=status.HTTP_500_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR, detail=f"Failed to {operation_name}: {exc_str}", ) from e return wrapper return decorator # Usage example: @classmethod @handle_flight_errors("create_flight") async def create_flight(cls, flight: Flight) -> Union[FlightCreated, HTTPException]: cls.guard(flight) async with FlightRepository(flight) as flight_repo: await flight_repo.create_flight() return FlightCreated(flight_id=flight_repo.flight_id)Also applies to: 180-198
43-43: Consider using@classmethodconsistently across all methods.For consistency with other methods in the class, consider converting
guardanddelete_flight_by_idto class methods.- @staticmethod - def guard(flight: Flight): + @classmethod + def guard(cls, flight: Flight): RocketController.guard(flight.rocket) - @staticmethod - async def delete_flight_by_id( + @classmethod + async def delete_flight_by_id( + cls, flight_id: str, ) -> Union[FlightDeleted, HTTPException]:
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
lib/controllers/environment.py(2 hunks)lib/controllers/flight.py(4 hunks)lib/controllers/motor.py(4 hunks)lib/controllers/rocket.py(4 hunks)lib/models/motor.py(1 hunks)tests/test_routes/test_motors_route.py(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- lib/controllers/environment.py
- tests/test_routes/test_motors_route.py
🔇 Additional comments (4)
lib/controllers/motor.py (2)
184-185: LGTM! Verify callers of update_motor_by_id
The implementation correctly validates the motor using cls.guard and follows the same pattern as create_motor.
Let's verify all callers have been updated to use the new signature:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for update_motor_by_id method calls
rg "update_motor_by_id\(" --type py39-42: LGTM! Verify callers of create_motor
The conversion to a class method with explicit motor parameter is a good improvement that removes unnecessary instance state.
Let's verify all callers have been updated to use the new signature:
✅ Verification successful
The previous script output showed results for update_motor_by_id instead of create_motor. Let's try again with the correct pattern to verify the callers of create_motor.
I need to verify if the route handler is correctly passing the motor parameter to the controller's create_motor method. The grep results show the call exists, but let's check the exact implementation.
The previous output didn't show enough context to see how the motor parameter is being passed to the controller. Let's get more lines of context to verify the implementation.
All callers correctly updated to use the new class method signature
The route handler in lib/routes/motor.py is correctly passing the motor parameter to MotorController.create_motor(motor), and this is the only caller of this method outside of tests and repository layer. The conversion to class method was implemented correctly with all dependent code updated appropriately.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for create_motor method calls
rg "create_motor\(" --type py
Length of output: 357
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for create_motor method calls (previous command had wrong pattern)
rg "create_motor\(" --type py
Length of output: 466
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the content of the route handler to verify the parameter passing
rg -A 5 "async def create_motor\(" lib/routes/motor.py
Length of output: 214
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Get more context from the route handler to see the full implementation
rg -B 2 -A 10 "async def create_motor\(" lib/routes/motor.py
Length of output: 401
lib/controllers/rocket.py (1)
Line range hint 33-69: LGTM! Well-structured refactoring with improved error handling.
The conversion to a class method with explicit rocket parameter improves clarity and maintainability. Good practices observed:
- Proper error handling hierarchy
- Null check in finally block prevents potential NoneType errors
- Clear separation of concerns
lib/controllers/flight.py (1)
43-46: LGTM! Well-structured error handling and null safety.
The changes demonstrate good practices:
- Proper validation using guard clause
- Context manager for repository operations
- Null check in finally block prevents potential AttributeError
Also applies to: 53-56, 76-79
Co-authored-by: coderabbitai[bot] <136622811+coderabbitai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
lib/controllers/flight.py (3)
Line range hint
180-198: LGTM! Consider improving error messagesThe refactor to accept a Flight object directly and the addition of the guard check are good improvements. However, the error messages could be more specific.
Consider updating the error messages to include more context:
- detail="Failed to update flight in db", + detail=f"Failed to update flight {flight_id} in database",
Line range hint
53-78: Consider extracting common error handling patternThe error handling pattern is repeated across multiple methods. Consider creating a decorator to handle these common patterns:
Example implementation:
from functools import wraps def handle_flight_errors(operation_name: str): def decorator(func): @wraps(func) async def wrapper(*args, **kwargs): try: return await func(*args, **kwargs) except PyMongoError as e: logger.error(f"controllers.flight.{operation_name}: PyMongoError {e}") raise HTTPException( status_code=status.HTTP_503_SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE, detail=f"Failed to {operation_name} flight in database", ) from e except HTTPException as e: raise e from e except Exception as e: exc_str = parse_error(e) logger.error(f"controllers.flight.{operation_name}: {exc_str}") raise HTTPException( status_code=status.HTTP_500_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR, detail=f"Failed to {operation_name} flight: {exc_str}", ) from e return wrapper return decoratorUsage:
@classmethod @handle_flight_errors("create") async def create_flight(cls, flight: Flight) -> Union[FlightCreated, HTTPException]: cls.guard(flight) async with FlightRepository(flight) as flight_repo: await flight_repo.create_flight() return FlightCreated(flight_id=flight_repo.flight_id)Also applies to: 197-220
43-44: Consider improving separation of concernsThe class mixes different responsibilities (validation, data access, business logic). Consider:
- Moving validation logic to a separate validator class
- Creating a service layer for business logic
- Using consistent method decorators (@classmethod vs @staticmethod)
This would improve maintainability and testability of the code. Example structure:
class FlightValidator: @classmethod def validate(cls, flight: Flight) -> None: # Current guard logic here pass class FlightService: def __init__(self, repository: FlightRepository): self.repository = repository async def create_flight(self, flight: Flight) -> FlightCreated: FlightValidator.validate(flight) return await self.repository.create_flight(flight) class FlightController: def __init__(self, service: FlightService): self.service = service async def create_flight(self, flight: Flight) -> FlightCreated: return await self.service.create_flight(flight)Also applies to: 180-182
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
lib/controllers/flight.py(4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
lib/controllers/flight.py (1)
43-56: LGTM! Good improvements to error handling
The refactor to a class method with proper initialization of flight_repo and error handling is well-implemented. The changes make the code more robust and maintainable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
lib/controllers/rocket.py (1)
Line range hint
171-189: Update docstring to reflect all parameters.The docstring needs to be updated to include the
rocketparameter. Currently, it only documents therocket_idparameter.Apply this diff to fix the docstring:
""" Update a models.Rocket in the database. Args: + rocket: Rocket model to update with rocket_id: str Returns: views.RocketUpdatedlib/controllers/flight.py (1)
Line range hint
43-82: Consider extracting common error handling logicThe error handling pattern is duplicated across multiple methods. Consider creating a decorator or utility method to handle common PyMongoError and generic Exception cases, reducing code duplication and maintaining consistency.
Example implementation:
from functools import wraps def handle_flight_errors(operation_name: str): def decorator(func): @wraps(func) async def wrapper(*args, **kwargs): try: return await func(*args, **kwargs) except PyMongoError as e: logger.error(f"controllers.flight.{operation_name}: PyMongoError {e}") raise HTTPException( status_code=status.HTTP_503_SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE, detail=f"Failed to {operation_name} flight in db", ) from e except HTTPException as e: raise e from e except Exception as e: exc_str = parse_error(e) logger.error(f"controllers.flight.{operation_name}: {exc_str}") raise HTTPException( status_code=status.HTTP_500_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR, detail=f"Failed to {operation_name} flight: {exc_str}", ) from e return wrapper return decorator # Usage example: @classmethod @handle_flight_errors("create_flight") async def create_flight(cls, flight: Flight) -> Union[FlightCreated, HTTPException]: cls.guard(flight) async with FlightRepository(flight) as flight_repo: await flight_repo.create_flight() return FlightCreated(flight_id=flight_repo.flight_id)Also applies to: 184-202
lib/controllers/motor.py (1)
72-80: Consider logging completion even whenmotor_repoisNoneIn the
finallyblock ofcreate_motor, ifmotor_repoisNone, thelogger.infostatement is not executed. To improve traceability, consider adding a log message to indicate that the operation has completed, even whenmotor_repoisNone.Apply this diff to include an else clause for logging:
if motor_repo: logger.info( f"Call to controllers.motor.create_motor completed for Motor {motor_id}" ) + else: + logger.info( + "Call to controllers.motor.create_motor completed but motor_repo is None" + )
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
lib/controllers/environment.py(2 hunks)lib/controllers/flight.py(4 hunks)lib/controllers/motor.py(4 hunks)lib/controllers/rocket.py(4 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- lib/controllers/environment.py
🔇 Additional comments (7)
lib/controllers/rocket.py (2)
33-46: LGTM! Good refactoring to class method.
The conversion to a class method improves the design by:
- Eliminating unnecessary instance state
- Making the dependency on the
rocketparameter explicit - Maintaining proper validation through
guardcheck
66-74: LGTM! Robust logging implementation.
The logging improvements handle edge cases well by:
- Safely accessing
rocket_idwith a default value - Adding null checks before logging
- Ensuring logging works even in error scenarios
lib/controllers/flight.py (3)
43-46: LGTM! Well-structured method signature change
The conversion to a class method with explicit Flight parameter improves clarity and type safety while maintaining stateless operation.
184-186: LGTM! Consistent implementation pattern
The update method follows the same robust pattern as create_flight with proper guard checks and error handling.
Also applies to: 201-202
76-80: LGTM! Robust error handling implementation
The improved error handling successfully addresses the potential AttributeError issue raised in previous reviews by safely accessing flight_id with proper null checks and default values.
lib/controllers/motor.py (2)
39-42: Conversion to class method is appropriate
The create_motor method has been correctly converted to a @classmethod, and the parameters have been updated accordingly. This refactoring enhances code clarity and removes the need for unnecessary instance variables.
172-172: Refactored update_motor_by_id method enhances consistency
The update_motor_by_id method has been appropriately converted to a @classmethod, aligning with the changes made in create_motor. This consistent use of class methods improves the overall design and clarity of the MotorController.
Also applies to: 174-174
45 passed, 286 warnings in 1.32sSummary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Refactor
MotorController,FlightController, andRocketControllerclasses by removing unnecessary instance variables and simplifying method signatures.Makefilefor improved linting commands and removed unnecessary package whitelisting.ConfigDictfor JSON serialization configuration, simplifying their structure and enhancing clarity.MotorTankandMotorclasses to improve initialization clarity.