-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces multiple changes across several files. Key modifications include updates to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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 (
|
cce1ad3
to
fdb0f7c
Compare
ignores R0913, R0917
There was a problem hiding this 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 rulesInstead of disabling these rules globally, consider:
- For R0913 (too-many-arguments):
- Use data classes or test fixtures to group related parameters
- Break down large test functions into smaller, focused ones
- 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 orderingThe
Parachute
class breaks the alphabetical ordering convention used in this file. Consider moving it after theNoseCone
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 usingmodel_dump()
instead of JSON serializationIn the
stub_motor
fixture, you're serializing theMotor
object to JSON and then deserializing it back into a dictionary. You can simplify this process by using themodel_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 fixturesSimilar to the
stub_motor
fixture, other fixtures likestub_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
, andstub_rocket
can be simplified by usingmodel_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 casesThe 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 unnecessaryside_effect=None
when patching methodsWhen patching
Motor.set_motor_kind
, specifyingside_effect=None
is unnecessary because it defaults toNone
. 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 codeSimplify to:
with patch.object( Motor, 'set_motor_kind' ) as mock_set_motor_kind: # Test codeThis 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
📒 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 likestub_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 inrocket.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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 onlyflight_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
lib/models/aerosurfaces.py
Outdated
class Parachute(BaseModel): | ||
name: str | ||
cd_s: float | ||
sampling_rate: int | ||
lag: float | ||
trigger: Union[str, float] | ||
noise: Tuple[float, float, float] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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:
-
Field validations:
cd_s
should be positive (drag coefficient × surface area)sampling_rate
should be positivelag
should be non-negative
-
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.
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] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
patched here dcb54b8
There was a problem hiding this 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
📒 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
There was a problem hiding this 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
lib/models/aerosurfaces.py
Outdated
class Parachute(BaseModel): | ||
name: str | ||
cd_s: float | ||
sampling_rate: int |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
There was a problem hiding this 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 3.12The 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 doneLength 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 3Length 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 pyLength of output: 1806
lib/models/aerosurfaces.py (1)
11-11
: Add validation for trigger string valuesThe
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
📒 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 problemstoo-many-arguments
andtoo-many-positional-arguments
: Might indicate methods that need refactoringredefined-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
andtoo-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.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Parachute
class to enhance rocket models with parachute attributes.Rocket
class to support multiple parachute instances.Changes to Existing Functionality
update_flight_by_id
andupdate_rocket_by_id
methods for consistency.Tests