fix/fix-test-validate-func #631
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
tests/test_cli.py (2)
Line range hint
183-282: Consider refactoring the policy file validation tests for better maintainability.The current implementation mixes testing of different policy versions in a single test method. Consider the following improvements:
- Split into separate test methods:
- def test_validate_with_basic_policy_file(self): + def test_validate_with_v2_policy_file(self): + # Test with policy version 2.0 only + ... + + def test_validate_with_v3_policy_file(self): + # Test with policy version 3.0 only + ...
- Add helper methods to reduce duplication:
def _validate_policy_file(self, version, path, expected_policy): result = self.runner.invoke(cli.cli, ['validate', 'policy_file', version, '--path', path]) parsed_policy = json.loads(result.stdout.split('\n', 1)[1]) self.assertEqual(expected_policy, parsed_policy)
- Use
assertDictEqualinstead of direct dictionary comparison to handle potential ordering issues in the JSON output.
547-550: Enhance debug flag test assertions.The current assertions could be more specific and cover more edge cases.
- assert expected_output_snippet in result.output + # Test debug output format + assert result.output.count('\n') > 1, "Debug output should have multiple lines" + assert 'DEBUG' in result.output, "Debug level should be visible in output" + + # Test specific debug information + assert expected_output_snippet in result.output + assert get_safety_version() in result.output + + # Test error cases + result_error = self.runner.invoke(cli.cli, ['--debug', 'invalid_command']) + assert result_error.exit_code != 0 + assert 'Error:' in result_error.output
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
tests/test_cli.py(5 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
tests/test_cli.py (1)
532-536:
Fix docstring parameter documentation.
The docstring parameters don't match the actual test parameters. The mock parameters are incorrectly documented.
- Args:
- mock_get_auth_info: Mock for retrieving authentication info.
- mock_is_valid: Mock for checking validity of inputs or authentication.
- mock_get_auth_type: Mock for retrieving the authentication type.
- mock_fetch_database: Mock for database fetching operations.
+ Args:
+ mock_get_auth_info (MagicMock): Mock for get_auth_info function.
+ mock_is_valid (MagicMock): Mock for Auth.is_valid method.
+ mock_get_auth_type (MagicMock): Mock for get_authentication_type method.
+ mock_fetch_database (MagicMock): Mock for fetch_database function.Likely invalid or redundant comment.
SafetyQuincyF
force-pushed
the
fix/fix-test-validate-func
branch
from
50e612c
to
4e1293e
Compare
Fixes test by removing installation section which is not present in v3 file.
Summary by CodeRabbit