284 add from file or load method to kmlkml #338
Conversation
|
Review changes with SemanticDiff. Analyzed 2 of 2 files. Overall, the semantic diff is 6% smaller than the GitHub diff.
|
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@cleder has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 23 minutes and 48 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. WalkthroughThe updates in the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant KMLParser
participant KMLFile
User->>KMLParser: call parse(file)
KMLParser->>KMLFile: read file
KMLParser->>KMLFile: parse content
KMLFile-->>KMLParser: return KML structure
KMLParser-->>User: return parsed KML structure
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? |
Reviewer's Guide by SourceryThis pull request introduces a new File-Level Changes
Tips
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #338 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 97.58% 97.59% +0.01%
===========================================
Files 46 46
Lines 4305 4330 +25
Branches 210 211 +1
===========================================
+ Hits 4201 4226 +25
Misses 71 71
Partials 33 33 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Failed to generate code suggestions for PR |
PR Summary
|
|
Preparing PR description... |
|
Preparing review... |
2 similar comments
|
Preparing review... |
|
Preparing review... |
![ellipsis-dev[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/64358?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 251fd83 in 58 seconds
More details
- Looked at
210lines of code in2files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
0drafted comments based on config settings.
Workflow ID: wflow_nLbYVFJjOoF6r9Yy
Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.
| element = config.etree.fromstring( | ||
| string, | ||
| tree = config.etree.parse( | ||
| file, | ||
| parser=config.etree.XMLParser( | ||
| huge_tree=True, | ||
| recover=True, | ||
| ), | ||
| ) | ||
| except TypeError: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The exception handling for TypeError seems redundant. If the initial parsing fails due to a TypeError, the same parsing method is called again without any changes or additional error handling, which could lead to unhandled exceptions if the error persists.
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @cleder - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!
Here's what I looked at during the review
- 🟡 General issues: 2 issues found
- 🟢 Security: all looks good
- 🟡 Testing: 1 issue found
- 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
- 🟢 Documentation: all looks good
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment to tell me if it was helpful.
|
|
||
| """ | ||
| try: | ||
| element = config.etree.fromstring( | ||
| string, | ||
| tree = config.etree.parse( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (performance): Consider performance implications for large files
The method now parses the entire file before extracting the root element. For very large files, this could have memory usage implications. Consider adding a note about this in the docstring, or investigate if there's a more memory-efficient way to parse large KML files.
| tree = config.etree.parse( | |
| with open(file, 'rb') as f: | |
| tree = config.etree.parse( | |
| f, | |
| parser=config.etree.XMLParser( |
| @@ -52,16 +59,92 @@ def test_kml(self) -> None: | |||
| assert k.to_string() == k2.to_string() | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| class TestParseKML(StdLibrary): | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (testing): Missing edge case for invalid KML file
Consider adding a test case to handle invalid or malformed KML files to ensure the parse method raises appropriate exceptions or handles errors gracefully.
| class TestParseKML(StdLibrary): | |
| class TestParseKML(StdLibrary): | |
| def test_parse_kml(self) -> None: | |
| empty_placemark = KMLFILEDIR / "emptyPlacemarkWithoutId.xml" | |
| def test_parse_invalid_kml(self) -> None: | |
| invalid_kml = KMLFILEDIR / "invalidKML.xml" | |
| with pytest.raises(SomeExpectedException): | |
| parse(invalid_kml) |
Co-authored-by: sourcery-ai[bot] <58596630+sourcery-ai[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (2)
tests/kml_test.py (2)
62-62: Add a class docstring.The class
TestParseKMLlacks a docstring. Adding a docstring will improve readability and maintainability.+""" +Test parsing of KML files. +"""
137-137: Add a class docstring.The class
TestLxmlParseKMLlacks a docstring. Adding a docstring will improve readability and maintainability.+""" +Test parsing of KML data using Lxml. +"""
Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- fastkml/kml.py (2 hunks)
- tests/kml_test.py (2 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (5)
tests/kml_test.py (4)
86-107: Verify the filename and expected output.Ensure that the file
emptyPlacemarkWithoutId.xmlexists at the specified path and that the expected output matches the file content.
109-130: Verify the file path and expected output.Ensure that the file
emptyPlacemarkWithoutId.xmlexists at the specified path and that the expected output matches the file content.
63-84: Verify the file path and expected output.Ensure that the file
emptyPlacemarkWithoutId.xmlexists at the specified path and that the expected output matches the file content.Verification successful
The file path and expected output have been verified successfully.
The file
emptyPlacemarkWithoutId.xmlexists at the specified path, and its content matches the expected KML structure in the test.
- File:
tests/ogc_conformance/data/kml/emptyPlacemarkWithoutId.xml- Content:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <kml xmlns="http://www.opengis.net/kml/2.2"> <Document id="doc-001"> <name>Vestibulum eleifend lobortis lorem.</name> <Placemark /> </Document> </kml>Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence of the file and its content. # Test: Check if the file exists. Expect: The file should exist. if [ ! -f "tests/ogc_conformance/data/kml/emptyPlacemarkWithoutId.xml" ]; then echo "File not found: tests/ogc_conformance/data/kml/emptyPlacemarkWithoutId.xml" exit 1 fi # Test: Display the file content. Expect: The content should match the expected output. cat tests/ogc_conformance/data/kml/emptyPlacemarkWithoutId.xmlLength of output: 342
141-148: Verify the KML data string and expected output.Ensure that the KML data string is valid and that the expected output matches the data.
fastkml/kml.py (1)
161-207: LGTM! But verify the parsing logic and docstring accuracy.The code changes are approved.
However, ensure that the parsing logic is correct and the docstring accurately reflects the new functionality.
Verification successful
Let's generate a new shell script to correctly search for the
parsemethod definition and its docstring.
The parsing logic and docstring are accurate.
The
parsemethod infastkml/kml.pyis correctly defined, and the docstring accurately reflects the new functionality. No issues were found.
fastkml/kml.py: lines 161-207Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the parsing logic and docstring accuracy. # Test: Search for the `parse` method definition. Expect: The method should be defined correctly with the new functionality. rg --type python -A 10 $'def parse' # Test: Display the docstring of the `parse` method. Expect: The docstring should accurately reflect the new functionality. rg --type python -A 10 $'def parse' | grep '"""'Length of output: 148
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the parsing logic and docstring accuracy. # Test: Search for the `parse` method definition. Expect: The method should be defined correctly with the new functionality. rg -A 20 $'def parse' # Test: Display the docstring of the `parse` method. Expect: The docstring should accurately reflect the new functionality. rg -A 20 $'def parse' | grep '"""'Length of output: 8675
|
Preparing review... |
CI Failure Feedback 🧐
✨ CI feedback usage guide:The CI feedback tool (
In addition to being automatically triggered, the tool can also be invoked manually by commenting on a PR: where Configuration options
See more information about the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 8eb9680 in 52 seconds
More details
- Looked at
14lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
1drafted comments based on config settings.
1. fastkml/kml.py:171
- Draft comment:
The PR description mentions deprecatingKML.class_from_string, but there are no changes related to this in the code. Please ensure the code reflects the intended deprecations to avoid discrepancies. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence of 0% on close inspection, compared to threshold of 50%.
Workflow ID: wflow_uD6amLW5O5NZW2Pa
You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.
|
Preparing review... |
Summary:
Added
KML.parsemethod to parse KML files from various input types, deprecatedKML.class_from_string, and updated tests and documentation accordingly.Key points:
KML.parsemethod infastkml/kml.pyto parse KML files fromPath,str, orIO[AnyStr].KML.class_from_stringmethod.tests/kml_test.pyto include tests forKML.parsewith file path, string, and file object inputs.Generated with ❤️ by ellipsis.dev
Summary by Sourcery
This pull request introduces a new
parsemethod to theKMLclass, replacing the olderclass_from_stringmethod. The new method supports parsing KML files from various input types, enhancing the flexibility of the library. Corresponding test cases have been added to ensure the functionality works as expected.parsemethod to theKMLclass to support parsing KML files from various input types including file paths, strings, and file objects.class_from_stringmethod with the more versatileparsemethod in theKMLclass.kml_test.pyto validate theparsemethod with different input types such as file paths, strings, and file objects.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation