test(watch): add comprehensive test suite for SetupAppWatcherWithReconciler and MockController#5538
test(watch): add comprehensive test suite for SetupAppWatcherWithReconciler and MockController#5538adity1raut wants to merge 2 commits intofluid-cloudnative:masterfrom
Conversation
…nciler and MockController Signed-off-by: adity1raut <araut7798@gmail.com>
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Summary of ChangesHello @adity1raut, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request significantly enhances the test coverage for the application watcher mechanism within the Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
|
Hi @adity1raut. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a fluid-cloudnative member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request adds a comprehensive test suite for SetupAppWatcherWithReconciler and its test double, MockController. The tests cover various setup scenarios and the behavior of the mock controller. The overall structure is good, but several test cases have descriptions that don't match their implementation, as they only check for successful execution rather than verifying specific outcomes. I've added comments to suggest renaming these tests for better clarity and accuracy.
| Expect(err).NotTo(HaveOccurred()) | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| It("should set the reconciler in options", func() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test's description, 'should set the reconciler in options', is not validated by its implementation. The test only checks for successful execution, similar to the test at lines 54-65, making it somewhat redundant. Consider removing this test or renaming it to better reflect its purpose, for example, 'should succeed with non-default options'.
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| Context("when controller name is provided", func() { | ||
| It("should use the controller name from the reconciler", func() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test's description, 'should use the controller name from the reconciler', is not validated by its implementation. The test only checks for successful execution. Consider renaming it to more accurately describe what is being tested, for example, 'should succeed when a controller name is provided'.
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| Context("when managed resource is specified", func() { | ||
| It("should watch the managed resource type", func() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test's description, 'should watch the managed resource type', is not validated by its implementation. The test only checks for successful execution. Consider renaming it to more accurately describe what is being tested, for example, 'should succeed when a managed resource is specified'.
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| Context("with different controller options", func() { | ||
| It("should respect MaxConcurrentReconciles setting", func() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test's description, 'should respect MaxConcurrentReconciles setting', is not validated by its implementation. The test only checks for successful execution. Consider renaming it to more accurately describe what is being tested, for example, 'should succeed with a custom MaxConcurrentReconciles setting'.
Signed-off-by: adity1raut <araut7798@gmail.com>
|
1 participant
…nciler and MockController
Ⅰ. Describe what this PR does
Ⅱ. Does this pull request fix one issue?
Part of #5407
Ⅲ. List the added test cases (unit test/integration test) if any, please explain if no tests are needed.
Ⅳ. Describe how to verify it
Ⅴ. Special notes for reviews