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

Implements rocket route tests #40

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Nov 23, 2024
Merged

Implements rocket route tests #40

merged 5 commits into from
Nov 23, 2024

Conversation

GabrielBarberini
Copy link
Collaborator

@GabrielBarberini GabrielBarberini commented Nov 16, 2024

  • Implements tests/test_routes/test_rockets_route.py
  • Small refactor on Rockets controller and route

Summary by CodeRabbit

Release Notes

  • New Features

    • Introduced a new Parachute class to enhance rocket models with parachute attributes.
    • Updated Rocket class to support multiple parachute instances.
  • Changes to Existing Functionality

    • Reordered parameters in update_flight_by_id and update_rocket_by_id methods for consistency.
    • Modified endpoint paths for rocket and flight data retrieval.
    • Updated API documentation to reflect changes in endpoint structure.
    • Incremented project version to "2.3.0" and specified Python version requirement as ">=3.12".
  • Tests

    • Added a comprehensive suite of unit tests for rocket-related API endpoints, covering various functionalities and error handling.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 16, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces multiple changes across several files. Key modifications include updates to the Makefile for pylint commands, reordering parameters in methods of the FlightController and RocketController classes, and the addition of a new Parachute class in both aerosurfaces.py and rocket.py. Additionally, route paths in the flight and rocket modules have been adjusted, and a new test suite for rocket-related API endpoints has been added.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
Makefile Updated pylint command for tests target to disable additional checks: R0913 and R0917.
lib/controllers/flight.py Changed method signature of update_flight_by_id from (flight: Flight, flight_id: str) to (flight_id: str, flight: Flight).
lib/controllers/rocket.py Changed method signature of update_rocket_by_id from (cls, rocket: Rocket, rocket_id: str) to (cls, rocket_id: str, rocket: Rocket).
lib/models/aerosurfaces.py Added new class Parachute with attributes: name, cd_s, sampling_rate, lag, trigger, and noise.
lib/models/rocket.py Added new class Parachute and updated Rocket class to include an optional parachutes parameter (list of Parachute instances).
lib/routes/flight.py Updated endpoint path from "/rocketpy/{flight_id}" to "/{flight_id}/rocketpy" and changed parameters in update_flight method call to flight_id and flight.
lib/routes/rocket.py Updated endpoint path from "/rocketpy/{rocket_id}" to "/{rocket_id}/rocketpy" and changed parameters in update_rocket method call to rocket_id and rocket.
tests/test_routes/test_rockets_route.py Introduced a new test suite for rocket-related API endpoints covering CRUD operations, error handling, and various functionalities using pytest and TestClient.
.github/workflows/pylint.yml Modified Pylint configuration to disable additional checks: R0913 and R0917.
README.md Updated API endpoint documentation, changing POST /rocketpy/model/:id to POST /model/:id/rocketpy.

Possibly related PRs

  • API Refactoring #20: The changes in the Makefile regarding the lint and format targets are related to the main PR's modifications to the Makefile, specifically the introduction of a new lint target and the simplification of the format target.
  • Major API refactoring #25: This PR also involves changes to the Makefile, particularly in the context of formatting and linting, which aligns with the main PR's updates to the Makefile.
  • Implements environment route tests #37: The modifications to the Makefile in this PR include enhancements to the formatting and linting processes, which are directly related to the changes made in the main PR regarding the Makefile.
  • Update README.md #39: The updates to the README.md regarding the API flow and response formats may indirectly relate to the changes in the Makefile if they affect how the API is documented and tested, although the connection is less direct than with the other PRs.

Suggested reviewers

  • Gui-FernandesBR
  • aasitvora99
  • luimot
  • phmbressan

🐇 In the code, we hop and play,
New classes bloom, bright as the day.
With paths rearranged, we dance in cheer,
Testing our rockets, we hold them dear.
Pylint now whispers, "All is well,"
In our code garden, all will excel! 🌼


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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

ignores R0913, R0917
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 2

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (7)
Makefile (1)

13-13: Consider alternatives to disabling pylint rules

Instead of disabling these rules globally, consider:

  1. For R0913 (too-many-arguments):
    • Use data classes or test fixtures to group related parameters
    • Break down large test functions into smaller, focused ones
  2. For R0917 (too-many-boolean-expressions):
    • Extract complex conditions into well-named helper methods
    • Use parameterized tests to reduce conditional complexity

Would you like assistance in implementing any of these suggestions?

lib/models/aerosurfaces.py (1)

6-13: Consider maintaining alphabetical class ordering

The Parachute class breaks the alphabetical ordering convention used in this file. Consider moving it after the NoseCone class to maintain consistency.

lib/controllers/rocket.py (1)

Line range hint 173-255: Consider improving error logging consistency.

The error logging messages use inconsistent method names:

  • Log messages use controllers.rocket.update_rocket
  • But the method name is update_rocket_by_id

Consider updating the log messages for consistency:

-            logger.error(f"controllers.rocket.update_rocket: PyMongoError {e}")
+            logger.error(f"controllers.rocket.update_rocket_by_id: PyMongoError {e}")
-            logger.error(f"controllers.rocket.update_rocket: {exc_str}")
+            logger.error(f"controllers.rocket.update_rocket_by_id: {exc_str}")
-                f"Call to controllers.rocket.update_rocket completed for Rocket {rocket_id}"
+                f"Call to controllers.rocket.update_rocket_by_id completed for Rocket {rocket_id}"
tests/test_routes/test_rockets_route.py (4)

36-47: Simplify fixture creation by using model_dump() instead of JSON serialization

In the stub_motor fixture, you're serializing the Motor object to JSON and then deserializing it back into a dictionary. You can simplify this process by using the model_dump() method to get a dictionary directly.

Apply this diff to simplify the 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,
     )
-    motor_json = motor.model_dump_json()
-    return json.loads(motor_json)
+    return motor.model_dump()

This approach reduces unnecessary serialization and improves the efficiency of your fixture.


51-62: Apply the same simplification to other fixtures

Similar to the stub_motor fixture, other fixtures like stub_tank, stub_level_tank, stub_mass_flow_tank, stub_ullage_tank, stub_mass_tank, stub_rocket_summary, stub_nose_cone, stub_fins, stub_tail, stub_rail_buttons, stub_parachute, and stub_rocket can be simplified by using model_dump().

For example, update the stub_tank fixture:

 def stub_tank():
     tank = MotorTank(
         geometry=[[(0, 0), 0]],
         gas=TankFluids(name='gas', density=0),
         liquid=TankFluids(name='liquid', density=0),
         flux_time=(0, 0),
         position=0,
         discretize=0,
         name='tank',
     )
-    tank_json = tank.model_dump_json()
-    return json.loads(tank_json)
+    return tank.model_dump()

Applying this change across all fixtures enhances code readability and reduces overhead.

Also applies to: 65-68, 71-84, 87-90, 93-98, 101-104, 108-119, 122-133, 136-147, 150-158, 161-172, 175-189


191-446: Use parameterization to reduce duplication in test cases

The test functions for creating rockets with different motor kinds and tank configurations have similar structures. You can utilize pytest.mark.parametrize to parameterize these tests, reducing code duplication and making the tests more maintainable.

Here's how you might refactor the tests:

@pytest.mark.parametrize(
    "motor_kind, stub_tank, motor_updates",
    [
        ("HYBRID", None, {
            'grain_number': 0,
            'grain_density': 0,
            'grain_outer_radius': 0,
            'grain_initial_inner_radius': 0,
            'grain_initial_height': 0,
            'grains_center_of_mass_position': 0,
            'grain_separation': 0,
            'throat_radius': 0,
        }),
        ("SOLID", None, {
            'grain_number': 0,
            'grain_density': 0,
            'grain_outer_radius': 0,
            'grain_initial_inner_radius': 0,
            'grain_initial_height': 0,
            'grains_center_of_mass_position': 0,
            'grain_separation': 0,
        }),
        ("LIQUID", stub_level_tank, {}),
        # Add other combinations as needed
    ],
)
def test_create_rocket_parametrized(
    stub_rocket, stub_motor, motor_kind, stub_tank, motor_updates
):
    if motor_updates:
        stub_motor.update(motor_updates)
    if stub_tank:
        stub_motor.update({'tanks': [stub_tank]})
    stub_rocket.update({'motor': stub_motor})
    with patch.object(
        RocketController,
        'create_rocket',
        return_value=RocketCreated(rocket_id='123'),
    ) as mock_create_rocket:
        with patch.object(
            Motor, 'set_motor_kind'
        ) as mock_set_motor_kind:
            response = client.post(
                '/rockets/', json=stub_rocket, params={'motor_kind': motor_kind}
            )
            assert response.status_code == 200
            assert response.json() == {
                'rocket_id': '123',
                'message': 'Rocket successfully created',
            }
            mock_set_motor_kind.assert_called_once_with(MotorKinds[motor_kind])
            mock_create_rocket.assert_called_once_with(Rocket(**stub_rocket))

This refactor enhances test coverage and simplifies maintenance.


197-200: Remove unnecessary side_effect=None when patching methods

When patching Motor.set_motor_kind, specifying side_effect=None is unnecessary because it defaults to None. You can simplify the code by omitting this parameter.

Apply this diff to each occurrence:

 with patch.object(
     Motor, 'set_motor_kind', side_effect=None
 ) as mock_set_motor_kind:
     # Test code

Simplify to:

 with patch.object(
     Motor, 'set_motor_kind'
 ) as mock_set_motor_kind:
     # Test code

This makes the code cleaner without affecting functionality.

Also applies to: 235-237, 265-267, 291-293, 316-318, 341-343, 366-368, 401-403, 434-436, 515-516

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between bef5c9a and fdb0f7c.

📒 Files selected for processing (8)
  • Makefile (1 hunks)
  • lib/controllers/flight.py (1 hunks)
  • lib/controllers/rocket.py (1 hunks)
  • lib/models/aerosurfaces.py (1 hunks)
  • lib/models/rocket.py (1 hunks)
  • lib/routes/flight.py (2 hunks)
  • lib/routes/rocket.py (1 hunks)
  • tests/test_routes/test_rockets_route.py (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
lib/routes/rocket.py (1)
Learnt from: GabrielBarberini
PR: RocketPy-Team/Infinity-API#38
File: lib/routes/motor.py:75-75
Timestamp: 2024-11-15T15:12:21.314Z
Learning: When modifying API route paths in `lib/routes/motor.py`, changing from `/rocketpy/{motor_id}` to `/{motor_id}/rocketpy` is acceptable when no external consumers are affected. It's acceptable to introduce this breaking change if the team has decided to adopt the new approach, provided that the `README` and related documentation are updated accordingly.
🔇 Additional comments (12)
Makefile (1)

13-13: Verify the necessity of disabling pylint rules R0913 and R0917

The addition of R0913 (too-many-arguments) and R0917 (too-many-boolean-expressions) to the disabled rules might mask potential design issues in the test files.

Let's check which test files are triggering these rules:

✅ Verification successful

Disabling pylint rules R0913 and R0917 is justified

After examining the test files, the disabled rules are warranted:

  • R0913 (too-many-arguments) is triggered by test fixtures that need to create complex objects with many parameters, especially in test_rockets_route.py where fixtures like stub_rocket, stub_motor, and various tank types require multiple parameters to properly test the API.
  • R0917 (too-many-boolean-expressions) is not actively triggered in the current test files, but its disabling is preemptive for future test cases that may need complex assertions.
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find test files that trigger the disabled pylint rules

# Run pylint without disabling these rules to see which files are affected
pylint --disable=E0401,W0621 --enable=R0913,R0917 ./tests/ 2>&1 | grep -E "R0913|R0917"

Length of output: 84


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's first check what test files exist
fd . tests/ -e py

# Then examine their content for complex boolean expressions and function signatures
for f in $(fd . tests/ -e py); do
  echo "=== $f ==="
  # Look for functions with many parameters
  ast-grep --pattern 'def $_($$$)' "$f" 2>/dev/null
  echo
  # Look for complex boolean expressions (multiple and/or operators)
  rg "(\s+and\s+|\s+or\s+).+(\s+and\s+|\s+or\s+)" "$f" 2>/dev/null
done

Length of output: 1110


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the test files content directly to see function parameters and boolean expressions
echo "=== test_environments_route.py ==="
cat tests/test_routes/test_environments_route.py

echo -e "\n=== test_motors_route.py ==="
cat tests/test_routes/test_motors_route.py

echo -e "\n=== test_rockets_route.py ==="
cat tests/test_routes/test_rockets_route.py

Length of output: 47634

lib/models/rocket.py (2)

10-10: LGTM! Import follows consistent pattern

The Parachute import is correctly grouped with other aerosurface components and follows the established import style.


Line range hint 38-38: LGTM! Verify documentation coverage

The parachutes field is correctly implemented as an optional list following the established pattern for other aerosurface components.

Let's check if documentation needs updating to reflect this new capability:

lib/models/aerosurfaces.py (2)

2-2: LGTM: Import changes are appropriate

The addition of Union to the typing imports is necessary for the new Parachute class's trigger field type definition.


6-12: Verify consistency with rocket.py implementation

Let's ensure the Parachute class definition is consistent with its usage in rocket.py.

✅ Verification successful

Integration is consistent across the codebase

The verification shows that:

  • The Parachute class is properly imported and used in rocket.py as an optional parameter in a list: parachutes: Optional[List[Parachute]] = None
  • The test fixture stub_parachute() demonstrates correct usage of all fields defined in the class
  • The integration with RocketPy is handled properly in lib/services/rocket.py through a conversion method
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify Parachute class consistency across files

# Check if the Parachute import exists in rocket.py
echo "Checking Parachute import in rocket.py:"
rg "from .*.aerosurfaces import.*Parachute" lib/models/rocket.py

# Compare Parachute class definitions
echo -e "\nComparing Parachute class definitions:"
rg -A 7 "class Parachute" lib/models/rocket.py

Length of output: 297


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a broader search to understand the usage and integration

# First, let's find all files that might reference Parachute
echo "Files containing Parachute references:"
rg -l "Parachute"

# Check for imports of aerosurfaces module
echo -e "\nImports of aerosurfaces module:"
rg "from.*aerosurfaces.*import"

# Look for actual usage of Parachute class
echo -e "\nUsage of Parachute class:"
rg -B 2 -A 2 "Parachute"

# Check if rocket.py exists and its content
echo -e "\nChecking rocket.py location:"
fd "rocket.py"

Length of output: 3835


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the actual usage in lib/models/rocket.py and test files to verify field consistency

# Check the full Parachute class definition in aerosurfaces.py
echo "Parachute class definition in aerosurfaces.py:"
rg -A 10 "class Parachute" lib/models/aerosurfaces.py

# Check how Parachute is used in rocket.py
echo -e "\nParachute usage in lib/models/rocket.py:"
rg -B 5 -A 5 "parachutes.*List\[Parachute\]" lib/models/rocket.py

# Check test usage for field validation
echo -e "\nParachute test usage:"
rg -A 10 "stub_parachute\(\):" tests/test_routes/test_rockets_route.py

Length of output: 1309

lib/routes/rocket.py (1)

76-76: LGTM! Verify controller method signature.

The parameter order change to (rocket_id, rocket) follows a consistent pattern of passing ID first.

Let's verify the controller's method signature matches this order:

✅ Verification successful

Parameter order in update_rocket_by_id call is correct

The method signature in RocketController.update_rocket_by_id matches exactly with the call order: (rocket_id: str, rocket: Rocket). This confirms the parameter ordering is consistent and correct.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the signature of update_rocket_by_id in RocketController
ast-grep --pattern 'class RocketController:
  $$$
  async def update_rocket_by_id(rocket_id: str, rocket: $_) {
    $$$
  }
  $$$'

Length of output: 132


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different pattern to find the controller method
# First, let's locate the RocketController class file
fd "rocket.*controller" --type f

# Then let's use ripgrep to find the method definition with context
rg "async def update_rocket_by_id" -A 2

Length of output: 480

lib/routes/flight.py (2)

149-149: LGTM! Parameter ordering is now more consistent.

The parameter reordering in update_flight_by_id(flight_id, flight) follows a more logical pattern where the resource identifier comes first.

Let's verify consistency across similar controller methods:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for all update methods in controllers to verify consistent parameter ordering
ast-grep --pattern 'async def update_$_by_id($$$)'

62-62: LGTM! The new path structure follows REST conventions better.

The path change from "/rocketpy/{flight_id}" to "/{flight_id}/rocketpy" is an improvement as it follows standard REST conventions where the resource ID precedes the action/format.

Let's verify this breaking change's impact on API clients:

✅ Verification successful

Breaking change is consistently applied across all resource endpoints

The search results show that the new /{id}/rocketpy path pattern is consistently implemented across all resource types:

  • /flights/{flight_id}/rocketpy
  • /motors/{motor_id}/rocketpy
  • /rockets/{rocket_id}/rocketpy
  • /environments/{env_id}/rocketpy

The tests have also been updated to use the new path pattern:

response = client.get('/rockets/123/rocketpy')
response = client.get('/motors/123/rocketpy')
response = client.get('/environments/123/rocketpy')

This consistent implementation across all endpoints maintains API uniformity and follows REST best practices.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for any references to the old endpoint path pattern
rg -l "rocketpy/[^/]+" --type py

# Search for potential API client implementations
rg -l "flights/rocketpy/" --type py

Length of output: 171


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for any references to the old endpoint pattern in Python files
rg "rocketpy/\{.*?\}" --type py

# Search for any references to the new endpoint pattern in Python files
rg "/\{.*?\}/rocketpy" --type py

# Search for any URLs or paths containing rocketpy
rg "rocketpy" --type py -C 2

Length of output: 33949

lib/controllers/rocket.py (2)

Line range hint 173-255: Implementation is well-suited for testing.

The method implementation is robust and test-friendly with:

  • Comprehensive error handling for different failure scenarios
  • Clear return type annotations including possible exceptions
  • Consistent error response structure
  • Well-documented parameters and return values

173-173: Parameter reordering improves consistency.

The reordering of parameters to (cls, rocket_id: str, rocket: Rocket) aligns with:

  • Other methods in the class that take rocket_id as their first parameter
  • REST API conventions where resource identifiers typically come first

Let's verify that all callers have been updated:

✅ Verification successful

Let me analyze the results from the search:

  1. The method is called in lib/routes/rocket.py:
return await RocketController.update_rocket_by_id(rocket_id, rocket)

This call already matches the new parameter order.

  1. The repository layer has a different method signature:
async def update_rocket_by_id(self, rocket_id: str):

This is a different method with different parameters, so it's not affected.

  1. Test files show only mocked calls using patch, which don't depend on parameter order.

Since the only actual call to this method is already using the correct parameter order, I can generate the final response:

Parameter reordering is safe and improves consistency

The reordering of parameters in update_rocket_by_id to (cls, rocket_id: str, rocket: Rocket) is safe as the only caller in lib/routes/rocket.py already uses the correct parameter order. This change successfully improves consistency with other methods in the class.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for calls to update_rocket_by_id to ensure they've been updated
rg -A 2 "update_rocket_by_id" --type py

Length of output: 1741

lib/controllers/flight.py (1)

186-186: LGTM! Parameter reordering improves consistency.

The change to put flight_id before flight in the method signature aligns with the parameter ordering convention used throughout the class, where identifiers consistently appear before data payloads.

Let's verify that all callers have been updated to match the new parameter order:

✅ Verification successful

Parameter reordering is safe and all callers are correctly updated

The verification shows:

  • The repository class has a different update_flight_by_id method with only flight_id parameter
  • The route layer correctly uses the new parameter order (flight_id, flight) when calling the controller
  • No other callers were found in the codebase
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for calls to update_flight_by_id to ensure they've been updated
rg -l "update_flight_by_id" | while read -r file; do
  if [[ "$file" != "lib/controllers/flight.py" ]]; then
    echo "Checking $file for update_flight_by_id calls:"
    rg -A 2 "update_flight_by_id" "$file"
  fi
done

Length of output: 1043


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the implementation of update_flight_by_id in the repository class
# to understand if it's a different method or needs parameter updates
ast-grep --pattern 'async def update_flight_by_id($$$)'

Length of output: 57


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the implementation details with ripgrep instead
rg -A 5 "async def update_flight_by_id" lib/repositories/flight.py

Length of output: 220

tests/test_routes/test_rockets_route.py (1)

635-670: Verify the use of HTTP status code 203 in test_read_rocketpy_rocket

In the test test_read_rocketpy_rocket, the response status code is asserted to be 203. Typically, a successful GET request should return a 200 OK status code. Please verify whether returning 203 Non-Authoritative Information is intentional and appropriate in this context.

Run the following script to check where status code 203 is set in the codebase:

This will help confirm if the API endpoint is designed to return a 203 status code.

✅ Verification successful

Status code 203 is consistently used for binary data endpoints

The use of status code 203 (Non-Authoritative Information) appears to be an intentional design pattern across the codebase for endpoints that return binary data. This is consistently implemented in multiple routes (rocket, motor, environment, and flight) when returning application/octet-stream responses. The test is correctly verifying this established behavior.

While 200 is more common, 203 can be appropriate when the returned data might be a transformed or processed version of the original resource, which appears to be the case here with the RocketPy binary data endpoints.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for usage of status code 203 in the codebase.

rg 'status_code\s*=\s*203' --type=py

Length of output: 414


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the context around these 203 status codes to understand their usage pattern
rg 'status_code=203' -B 2 -A 2 --type=py

Length of output: 1697


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the specific endpoint in rocket.py to understand the full context
rg -B 10 -A 5 'status_code=203.*response_class=Response' lib/routes/rocket.py

Length of output: 79


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to get the endpoint context
rg -B 10 -A 5 '@router\.get.*rocketpy' lib/routes/rocket.py

Length of output: 61


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check all endpoints that return binary data with 203 status code
rg -B 5 -A 5 'media_type="application/octet-stream"' lib/routes/

Length of output: 2215

Comment on lines 6 to 12
class Parachute(BaseModel):
name: str
cd_s: float
sampling_rate: int
lag: float
trigger: Union[str, float]
noise: Tuple[float, float, float]
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot Nov 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Add field validations and improve documentation

The Parachute class needs additional validations and documentation:

  1. Field validations:

    • cd_s should be positive (drag coefficient × surface area)
    • sampling_rate should be positive
    • lag should be non-negative
  2. Documentation needs:

    • Class docstring explaining purpose and usage
    • Document valid values for trigger field
    • Document what each float in noise tuple represents

Here's a suggested implementation:

 class Parachute(BaseModel):
+    """Represents a parachute aerosurface with deployment characteristics.
+
+    Attributes:
+        name: Identifier for the parachute
+        cd_s: Product of drag coefficient and surface area (m²)
+        sampling_rate: Data sampling rate in Hz
+        lag: Deployment delay in seconds
+        trigger: Deployment condition (altitude in meters or event name)
+        noise: Simulation noise parameters (mean, std, time_correlation)
+    """
     name: str
-    cd_s: float
-    sampling_rate: int
-    lag: float
+    cd_s: float = Field(..., gt=0, description="Must be positive")
+    sampling_rate: int = Field(..., gt=0, description="Must be positive")
+    lag: float = Field(..., ge=0, description="Must be non-negative")
     trigger: Union[str, float]
     noise: Tuple[float, float, float]
📝 Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change
class Parachute(BaseModel):
name: str
cd_s: float
sampling_rate: int
lag: float
trigger: Union[str, float]
noise: Tuple[float, float, float]
class Parachute(BaseModel):
"""Represents a parachute aerosurface with deployment characteristics.
Attributes:
name: Identifier for the parachute
cd_s: Product of drag coefficient and surface area (m²)
sampling_rate: Data sampling rate in Hz
lag: Deployment delay in seconds
trigger: Deployment condition (altitude in meters or event name)
noise: Simulation noise parameters (mean, std, time_correlation)
"""
name: str
cd_s: float = Field(..., gt=0, description="Must be positive")
sampling_rate: int = Field(..., gt=0, description="Must be positive")
lag: float = Field(..., ge=0, description="Must be non-negative")
trigger: Union[str, float]
noise: Tuple[float, float, float]

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Gui-FernandesBR do you agree with that ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems like the humans are having a chat. I'll hop back into my burrow for now. If you need me again, just tag @coderabbitai in a new comment, and I'll come hopping out!

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@GabrielBarberini yes the idea is great, just use ge instead of gt for cd_s. The cd_s can also be zero.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

patched here dcb54b8

lib/routes/rocket.py Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
README.md (1)

177-177: LGTM! Consider adding deprecation notice.

The endpoint renaming from /rocketpy/model/:id to /model/:id/rocketpy follows better RESTful conventions by making the resource the primary path component. The sequence diagram accurately reflects this change and the data flow.

If the old endpoint /rocketpy/model/:id is still supported, consider adding a deprecation notice in the documentation to help users migrate to the new endpoint structure.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between fdb0f7c and 0b79762.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • .github/workflows/pylint.yml (1 hunks)
  • README.md (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
  • .github/workflows/pylint.yml

Copy link
Member

@Gui-FernandesBR Gui-FernandesBR left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, another great addition

class Parachute(BaseModel):
name: str
cd_s: float
sampling_rate: int
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

almost sure the sampling_rate can be a float value

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

small suggestion to define the fixtures in a separate file, this usually makes our life easier when reading the tests

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for the heads up, I'll just finish the other tests so I can get a better picture of which fixtures are going to be common to everything then I'll put them in a different directory.

@GabrielBarberini GabrielBarberini merged commit f3e0f56 into master Nov 23, 2024
3 checks passed
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 2

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
pyproject.toml (1)

Python 3.12 requirement seems unnecessary

The codebase uses match-case statements (introduced in Python 3.10) and basic f-strings, but no Python 3.12-specific features were found. The dependencies listed in requirements.txt are also compatible with Python 3.11. Consider relaxing the Python requirement to ">=3.11" to ensure broader adoption while maintaining modern Python features.

🔗 Analysis chain

Line range hint 3-4: Consider the impact of requiring Python 3.12

The Python requirement of ">=3.12" might be too restrictive as it's a very recent version (released Oct 2023). Consider if Python 3.11 compatibility could be maintained to ensure broader adoption and easier deployment.

Let's check the Python version requirements of dependencies:


Let me check the Python version requirements in pyproject.toml and examine FastAPI's version, as it's a major dependency that might influence the Python version requirement. This will help us understand if Python 3.12 is truly necessary or if we can support earlier versions.


Let me check if there are any Python 3.12-specific features being used in the codebase that would justify requiring such a recent version. This will help determine if we can safely support Python 3.11 as well.


Let me try searching for Python 3.12 specific features with simpler regex patterns to avoid parsing errors. This will help determine if there's any technical requirement for Python 3.12.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if dependencies support Python 3.12
# Get dependencies from requirements files if they exist
for req in requirements*.txt; do
  if [ -f "$req" ]; then
    echo "=== Checking $req ==="
    cat "$req"
  fi
done

Length of output: 587


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check RocketPy's Python version requirements
rg "python_requires|Python" pyproject.toml

# Check FastAPI's Python version requirements since it's a key dependency
rg "fastapi" requirements.txt -A 3 -B 3

Length of output: 324


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check if there are any Python 3.12-specific features being used
rg "match.*case:|type\s+.*\[.*\]|Self|TypeVarTuple|Unpack|assert\s+.*,\s+.*=|async\s+with\s+.*\s+as\s+.*,\s+.*:|f'{.*=.*}'" -t py

# Also check for any explicit version checks in the code
rg "sys\.version_info|python_version|requires.*3\.12" -g "!{*.txt,*.md,*.toml}"

Length of output: 531


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check for Python 3.12 specific features with separate searches
# Check for type annotations and match-case statements
rg "type\s+\w+\[" -t py
rg "match\s+.*:" -t py -A 2
rg "case\s+.*:" -t py

# Check for f-strings with = operator
rg "f['\"].*=.*['\"]" -t py

Length of output: 1806

lib/models/aerosurfaces.py (1)

11-11: Add validation for trigger string values

The trigger field accepts either altitude (float) or event name (str), but lacks validation for allowed event names.

+class TriggerEvent(str, Enum):
+    APOGEE = "apogee"
+    LAUNCH = "launch"
+    # Add other valid events...
+
 class Parachute(BaseModel):
     # ... other fields ...
-    trigger: Union[str, float]
+    trigger: Union[TriggerEvent, float]
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0b79762 and dcb54b8.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)
  • Makefile (2 hunks)
  • lib/models/aerosurfaces.py (1 hunks)
  • pyproject.toml (1 hunks)
  • tests/test_routes/test_rockets_route.py (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
  • Makefile
  • tests/test_routes/test_rockets_route.py
🔇 Additional comments (4)
pyproject.toml (2)

Line range hint 10-13: LGTM: Maintainers section properly updated

The new maintainers have been added with correct formatting and valid email addresses.


46-50: Review the necessity of disabling these pylint rules

Some of the newly disabled rules might be masking actual code issues:

  • import-error: Could hide real import problems
  • too-many-arguments and too-many-positional-arguments: Might indicate methods that need refactoring
  • redefined-outer-name: Could lead to confusing variable scope issues

Consider addressing the underlying code issues instead of disabling these checks.

Let's check for potential issues these rules might be hiding:

✅ Verification successful

Let me gather more information to verify the necessity of these disabled rules.


Based on the analysis of the codebase, I can now provide a final response:

The disabled pylint rules appear justified in this codebase

  • import-error: The imports are clean and well-organized, with proper error handling patterns and no complex relative imports that could cause issues.
  • too-many-arguments and too-many-positional-arguments: The function definitions show appropriate parameter usage, mainly in test fixtures and route handlers where multiple parameters are often necessary for proper testing and API handling.
  • redefined-outer-name: This is commonly triggered in pytest fixtures (as seen in the test files) where fixture names are intentionally reused, which is a standard pytest pattern.

The disabled rules appear to be deliberate choices that accommodate testing patterns and API design requirements rather than masking actual code issues.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for potential code issues related to disabled rules

# Check for functions with many arguments
echo "=== Checking for functions with many parameters ==="
ast-grep --pattern 'def $FUNC($PARAMS) { $$$ }' | grep -E '\([^)]{80,}'

# Check for potential import issues
echo "=== Checking for potential import issues ==="
rg '^import' -A 1

Length of output: 1777


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for redefined outer names in test files (common case)
echo "=== Checking for potential redefined outer names in tests ==="
rg "^(\s+)?def test_.*:.*\n.*\s+\w+\s*=.*\n.*\s+\w+\s*=" -A 3

# Check for functions with many arguments in actual implementation
echo "=== Checking function definitions with parameters ==="
rg "^def \w+\([^)]+\)" -A 1

# Check for import errors by looking for relative imports and try-except around imports
echo "=== Checking for import error handling ==="
rg "^from \." -A 1
rg "try:.*\s+import" -A 2

Length of output: 7627

lib/models/aerosurfaces.py (2)

2-3: LGTM: Import statements are appropriate

The added imports for Union and Field are necessary for the new Parachute class implementation.


9-9: Consider type consistency with AI summary

The sampling_rate is defined as float in the code but was mentioned as int in previous discussions. Please verify the intended type.

pyproject.toml Show resolved Hide resolved
lib/models/aerosurfaces.py Show resolved Hide resolved
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