feat: test unit #19
feat: test unit #19
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes involve the addition of two new private static final string constants, Changes
Possibly related PRs
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
|
||
|
|
||
| private static final String SRE = "dd"; | ||
| private static final String RE = "dd"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Unclear Purpose and Inconsistent Initialization of SRE and RE Constants
The constants SRE and RE in NebulaSysWebUtils.java are defined with the value "dd" but are not utilized anywhere else in the codebase. This raises several concerns:
- Unclear Purpose: It's unclear what "SRE" and "RE" represent within the application's context.
- Inconsistent Initialization: The value "dd" does not follow the naming pattern of other environment constants such as "dev", "test", "stage", and "prd".
- Redundancy: Since these constants are not used elsewhere, they might be unnecessary and could be removed to simplify the codebase.
Recommendations:
- Clarify Intent: Provide comments or documentation explaining the purpose of
SREandRE. - Consistent Naming: Align the initialization values with existing environment constants (e.g., "sre" and "re" if they represent new environments).
- Remove If Unused: Consider removing these constants if they are not serving a functional purpose in the application.
Analysis chain
Clarify the purpose of new constants and consider adding supporting methods.
The addition of SRE and RE constants raises a few concerns:
- The purpose of these constants is unclear. What do "SRE" and "RE" represent?
- Both constants are initialized with "dd", which doesn't follow the pattern of other environment constants (e.g., "dev", "test", "stage", "prd").
- There are no corresponding methods like
isSRE()orisRE(), unlike the existing environment constants.
Consider the following actions:
- Add comments explaining the purpose of these new constants.
- Review if "dd" is the correct value or if it should match the naming convention (e.g., "sre" and "re").
- If these represent new environments, add corresponding methods:
public boolean isSRE() {
return Objects.equals(active, SRE);
}
public boolean isRE() {
return Objects.equals(active, RE);
}- Update the class-level JavaDoc to mention these new environment types if they are indeed new environments.
To ensure these constants are used consistently across the project, run the following script:
This will help identify if these constants are used elsewhere and if there are any inconsistencies with the "dd" value.
Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for usage of SRE and RE constants and potential inconsistencies
# Search for SRE usage
echo "Searching for SRE usage:"
rg --type java "SRE" -C 3
echo "Searching for RE usage:"
rg --type java "RE" -C 3
echo "Checking for potential inconsistencies with 'dd' value:"
rg --type java '"dd"' -C 3
Length of output: 29473
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
spring-boot-nebula-web-common/src/test/java/com/nebula/web/common/utils/ExpressionUtilTest.java (1)
Line range hint
1-108: Consider enhancing test coverage and improving test structure.The test class provides good coverage for various scenarios of
ExpressionUtil. However, given the recent changes, consider the following improvements:
- Add more test cases to cover edge cases and potential error scenarios, especially related to the new behavior observed in
testParseWithMethodAndArgs.- Group related tests using nested test classes (using
@Nestedannotation) to improve readability and organization.- Use parameterized tests (using
@ParameterizedTest) for similar test cases with different inputs, which could help in testing the new behavior more thoroughly.- Consider adding tests for concurrent usage of
ExpressionUtilif it's meant to be thread-safe.- Use
@DisplayNameannotations to provide more descriptive names for your test methods, improving test report readability.Example of grouping and parameterized tests:
@Nested @DisplayName("Tests for ExpressionUtil.parse with method and args") class ParseWithMethodAndArgsTests { @ParameterizedTest @CsvSource({ "'#param1', 'Hello1'", "'#param2', '5'", "'#param1 + #param2', 'Hello51'" }) void testParse(String expression, String expected) throws NoSuchMethodException { Method method = TestClass.class.getDeclaredMethod("testMethod", String.class, int.class); Object[] args = {"Hello", 5}; assertEquals(expected, ExpressionUtil.parse(expression, method, args)); } }This structure would make it easier to add and organize new test cases for the changed behavior.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- spring-boot-nebula-web-common/src/test/java/com/nebula/web/common/utils/ExpressionUtilTest.java (2 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (2)
spring-boot-nebula-web-common/src/test/java/com/nebula/web/common/utils/ExpressionUtilTest.java (2)
35-37:⚠️ Potential issueClarify changes in expected values and update test method accordingly.
The expected values in the assertions have been changed:
"Hello"to"Hello1"for#param1"Hello5"to"Hello51"for#param1 + #param2These changes suggest that the behavior of
ExpressionUtil.parse()might have been modified. Please clarify:
- Was this change due to a bug fix or a change in requirements?
- Does this new behavior apply to all use cases of
ExpressionUtil.parse()?Consider the following improvements:
- Update the test method name to reflect the new behavior (e.g.,
testParseWithMethodAndArgsAppendingOne).- Add comments explaining why the expected values now include an additional "1".
- If this is a significant change in behavior, consider adding new test cases to cover both the old and new behavior, ensuring backwards compatibility if needed.
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for other usages of ExpressionUtil.parse() that might be affected by this change. # Test: Search for other usages of ExpressionUtil.parse() in the codebase. rg --type java 'ExpressionUtil\.parse\(' -g '!ExpressionUtilTest.java'
7-8: Verify the necessity of Mockito extension.The Mockito extension has been added to the test class, but it doesn't appear to be used in any of the current tests. Consider removing it if it's not needed for future tests to keep the class focused and avoid unnecessary dependencies.
Also applies to: 22-22
Verification successful
Re-execute the Mockito usage check with a corrected script to ensure accurate verification.
Mockito extension is currently unused and can be removed.
The
MockitoExtensionis imported and annotated inExpressionUtilTest.java, but there are no usages of Mockito methods such asmock,verify, orwhenwithin the tests. Removing the extension will eliminate unnecessary dependencies and simplify the test setup.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if Mockito is used in the test class. # Test: Search for Mockito usage in the test file. rg --type java 'mock|verify|when' spring-boot-nebula-web-common/src/test/java/com/nebula/web/common/utils/ExpressionUtilTest.javaLength of output: 524
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if Mockito is used in the test class. # Test: Search for Mockito usage keywords in the specified test file. rg --type java 'mock|verify|when' spring-boot-nebula-web-common/src/test/java/com/nebula/web/common/utils/ExpressionUtilTest.javaLength of output: 182
| @Test | ||
| public void test() { | ||
| System.out.println("ggggg"); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove or properly implement the 'test' method.
The newly added 'test' method doesn't actually test any functionality. It only prints to the console, which is not a proper use of a test method. Consider either:
- Removing this method if it's not needed.
- Implementing a proper test case with assertions if there's a specific functionality to test.
- If this is a temporary debug method, consider using a logging framework instead of System.out.println().
Also, ensure that test method names are descriptive and follow the naming convention of 'testMethodName' or 'shouldDoSomethingWhenSomething'.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
spring-boot-nebula-common/.flattened-pom.xml (1)
8-8: Consider using semantic versioning for version numbers.The current version number
0.0.01does not follow the standard semantic versioning format (MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH). Consider changing it to a more standard format like0.0.1for better version management and clarity.- <version>0.0.01</version> + <version>0.0.1</version>Also applies to: 12-12
pom.xml (1)
Line range hint
1-248: Suggestion: Update PR description with change rationaleThe changes in this PR include adding a test dependency and updating Maven plugin versions. While these changes are beneficial, it would be helpful to update the PR description with the rationale behind these changes. This could include:
- Why the
spring-boot-starter-testdependency was added- The benefits or necessity of updating the Maven plugin versions
- Any potential impacts on the build process or development workflow
Providing this context will help reviewers and future maintainers understand the purpose and impact of these changes.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
- .flattened-pom.xml (1 hunks)
- pom.xml (2 hunks)
- spring-boot-nebula-common/.flattened-pom.xml (1 hunks)
- spring-boot-nebula-web-common/src/main/java/com/nebula/web/common/utils/NebulaSysWebUtils.java (1 hunks)
- spring-boot-nebula-web-common/src/test/java/com/nebula/web/common/utils/ExpressionUtilTest.java (2 hunks)
- spring-boot-nebula-web-common/src/test/java/com/nebula/web/common/utils/SpringBeanUtilsTest.java (2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- spring-boot-nebula-web-common/src/main/java/com/nebula/web/common/utils/NebulaSysWebUtils.java
- spring-boot-nebula-web-common/src/test/java/com/nebula/web/common/utils/SpringBeanUtilsTest.java
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- spring-boot-nebula-web-common/src/test/java/com/nebula/web/common/utils/ExpressionUtilTest.java
🔇 Additional comments not posted (9)
spring-boot-nebula-common/.flattened-pom.xml (2)
13-19: License information looks good.The Apache Software License, Version 2.0 is correctly specified with the appropriate name, URL, and distribution information.
1-64: Overall POM file structure looks good.The POM file is well-structured and contains all the necessary elements for the
spring-boot-nebula-commonmodule. It correctly defines the project metadata, parent project, license information, and dependencies. With the suggested improvements in previous comments, this file will provide a solid foundation for the common module in the project..flattened-pom.xml (4)
26-37: Module structure looks good.The project has a well-organized module structure with consistent naming conventions. This modular approach should promote good separation of concerns and maintainability.
38-56: SCM, issue management, and distribution configurations are properly set up.The project is well-configured for version control, issue tracking, and artifact distribution. This setup will facilitate collaboration and deployment processes.
65-82: Dependency management is well-structured.The project uses a separate dependencies module for managing dependencies, which is a good practice for multi-module projects. The inclusion of only test dependencies at the parent level is appropriate.
178-215: Spotless configuration looks good.The Spotless plugin is well-configured to maintain consistent code style across the project. The use of external formatter and license header files is a good practice for centralized style management.
pom.xml (3)
48-54: LGTM: Addition of spring-boot-starter-test dependencyThe addition of the
spring-boot-starter-testdependency is appropriate for unit testing in a Spring Boot project. The test scope is correctly set, ensuring it's only used for testing purposes.
82-82: Verify compatibility with updated maven-source-plugin versionThe update of
maven-source-pluginto version 3.2.1 is a good practice. However, please ensure that this update is compatible with your project's Java version and other plugins.To verify the compatibility, you can run the following command:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify maven-source-plugin compatibility # Test: Check if the source JAR is correctly generated with the new plugin version mvn clean package ls -l target/*-sources.jar
61-61: Verify compatibility with updated maven-compiler-plugin versionThe update of
maven-compiler-pluginto version 3.10.1 is a good practice. However, please ensure that this update is compatible with your project's Java version and other plugins.To verify the compatibility, you can run the following command:
| <dependencies> | ||
| <dependency> | ||
| <groupId>org.slf4j</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId> | ||
| </dependency> | ||
| <dependency> | ||
| <groupId>ch.qos.logback</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>logback-classic</artifactId> | ||
| <optional>true</optional> | ||
| </dependency> | ||
| <dependency> | ||
| <groupId>org.projectlombok</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>lombok</artifactId> | ||
| </dependency> | ||
| <dependency> | ||
| <groupId>org.apache.commons</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>commons-lang3</artifactId> | ||
| </dependency> | ||
| <dependency> | ||
| <groupId>com.google.guava</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>guava</artifactId> | ||
| </dependency> | ||
| <dependency> | ||
| <groupId>org.apache.commons</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>commons-collections4</artifactId> | ||
| </dependency> | ||
| <dependency> | ||
| <groupId>junit</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>junit</artifactId> | ||
| <scope>test</scope> | ||
| </dependency> | ||
| <dependency> | ||
| <groupId>com.fasterxml.jackson.core</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>jackson-core</artifactId> | ||
| </dependency> | ||
| <dependency> | ||
| <groupId>com.fasterxml.jackson.core</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>jackson-databind</artifactId> | ||
| </dependency> | ||
| <dependency> | ||
| <groupId>com.fasterxml.jackson.datatype</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>jackson-datatype-jsr310</artifactId> | ||
| </dependency> | ||
| </dependencies> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider specifying versions for dependencies and adding scope for Lombok.
-
It's a good practice to specify versions for dependencies to ensure reproducible builds. Consider adding version tags for dependencies that don't have them.
-
The Lombok dependency should typically have a
providedscope to prevent it from being transitively included in projects that depend on this module.
Example changes:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.slf4j</groupId>
<artifactId>slf4j-api</artifactId>
+ <version>${slf4j.version}</version>
</dependency>
...
<dependency>
<groupId>org.projectlombok</groupId>
<artifactId>lombok</artifactId>
+ <scope>provided</scope>
</dependency>Consider applying similar changes to other dependencies as needed.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| <developers> | ||
| <developer> | ||
| <name>weihubeats</name> | ||
| <email>[email protected]</email> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Potential typo in developer's email address.
The developer's email address is listed as "[email protected]". This appears to be a typo and should likely be "[email protected]" (note the correct spelling of "apache").
Please verify and correct the email address if necessary.
| <properties> | ||
| <spotless-maven-plugin.version>2.43.0</spotless-maven-plugin.version> | ||
| <maven.compiler.target>11</maven.compiler.target> | ||
| <maven.compiler.source>11</maven.compiler.source> | ||
| <maven-gpg-plugin.version>3.0.1</maven-gpg-plugin.version> | ||
| <flatten-maven-plugin.version>1.2.7</flatten-maven-plugin.version> | ||
| <revision>0.0.01</revision> | ||
| </properties> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider updating Java version and clarify revision property usage.
-
The project is currently set to use Java 11. While this is still supported, you might want to consider updating to a more recent LTS version like Java 17 for improved performance and longer support lifecycle.
-
The
revisionproperty is defined with the same value as the project version. If this is intended for CI-friendly builds, consider using${revision}in the<version>tag instead of a hardcoded value.
Would you like me to provide an example of how to implement these suggestions?
| <build> | ||
| <plugins> | ||
| <plugin> | ||
| <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId> | ||
| <version>3.10.1</version> | ||
| <inherited>true</inherited> | ||
| <configuration> | ||
| <source>${maven.compiler.source}</source> | ||
| <target>${maven.compiler.target}</target> | ||
| </configuration> | ||
| </plugin> | ||
| <plugin> | ||
| <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId> | ||
| <version>2.18.1</version> | ||
| <inherited>true</inherited> | ||
| <configuration> | ||
| <forkCount>1</forkCount> | ||
| <reuseForks>false</reuseForks> | ||
| </configuration> | ||
| </plugin> | ||
| <plugin> | ||
| <artifactId>maven-source-plugin</artifactId> | ||
| <version>3.2.1</version> | ||
| <executions> | ||
| <execution> | ||
| <phase>package</phase> | ||
| <goals> | ||
| <goal>jar-no-fork</goal> | ||
| </goals> | ||
| </execution> | ||
| </executions> | ||
| <configuration> | ||
| <attach>true</attach> | ||
| </configuration> | ||
| </plugin> | ||
| <plugin> | ||
| <artifactId>maven-site-plugin</artifactId> | ||
| <version>3.7.1</version> | ||
| </plugin> | ||
| <plugin> | ||
| <artifactId>maven-javadoc-plugin</artifactId> | ||
| <version>3.0.1</version> | ||
| <executions> | ||
| <execution> | ||
| <phase>package</phase> | ||
| <goals> | ||
| <goal>jar</goal> | ||
| </goals> | ||
| </execution> | ||
| </executions> | ||
| <configuration> | ||
| <javadocExecutable>${java.home}/bin/javadoc</javadocExecutable> | ||
| <additionalJOptions> | ||
| <additionalJOption>-Xdoclint:none</additionalJOption> | ||
| </additionalJOptions> | ||
| </configuration> | ||
| </plugin> | ||
| <plugin> | ||
| <artifactId>maven-gpg-plugin</artifactId> | ||
| <version>${maven-gpg-plugin.version}</version> | ||
| <executions> | ||
| <execution> | ||
| <id>sign-artifacts</id> | ||
| <phase>verify</phase> | ||
| <goals> | ||
| <goal>sign</goal> | ||
| </goals> | ||
| </execution> | ||
| </executions> | ||
| </plugin> | ||
| <plugin> | ||
| <groupId>org.codehaus.mojo</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>flatten-maven-plugin</artifactId> | ||
| <version>${flatten-maven-plugin.version}</version> | ||
| <executions> | ||
| <execution> | ||
| <id>flatten</id> | ||
| <phase>process-resources</phase> | ||
| <goals> | ||
| <goal>flatten</goal> | ||
| </goals> | ||
| </execution> | ||
| <execution> | ||
| <id>flatten.clean</id> | ||
| <phase>clean</phase> | ||
| <goals> | ||
| <goal>clean</goal> | ||
| </goals> | ||
| </execution> | ||
| </executions> | ||
| <configuration> | ||
| <updatePomFile>true</updatePomFile> | ||
| <flattenMode>resolveCiFriendliesOnly</flattenMode> | ||
| </configuration> | ||
| </plugin> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider updating plugin versions and javadoc configuration.
-
The maven-surefire-plugin version (2.18.1) is quite old. Consider updating to the latest version for improved test execution and compatibility.
-
The maven-javadoc-plugin configuration currently disables all doclint checks (
-Xdoclint:none). While this ensures the build doesn't fail due to documentation issues, it might lead to lower quality JavaDocs. Consider enabling some level of doclint to maintain documentation quality.
Would you like me to provide specific version recommendations or alternative javadoc configurations?
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
SREandRE, enhancing the available constants for future use.Tests
Chores
spring-boot-nebulaproject, establishing foundational structure and configuration.pom.xmlfile for better organization.Style
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Refactor
Revert