added test cases and unit tests #46
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several changes, including the addition of a new GitHub Actions workflow for pull request testing, which integrates Rust and PostgreSQL testing alongside UI and API builds. It modifies the existing test suites for controllers to focus on successful operations rather than unauthorized access checks. Additionally, it transitions a dependency in the API package to a workspace configuration and introduces new utility modules for hashing and time manipulation. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Runner as GitHub Runner
participant Repo as Repository
participant Rust as Rust Setup
participant DB as PostgreSQL Service
Runner->>Repo: Checkout repository (with submodules)
Runner->>Rust: Set up Rust toolchain (Clippy, Rustfmt, dependencies)
Runner->>DB: Initialize PostgreSQL service & run health check
Runner->>Runner: Run lint, formatting, and tests (make test)
sequenceDiagram
actor Client as API Client
participant Server as Collection Controller
Client->>Server: Send GET request to "/"
Server->>Client: Return collection data (POST route removed)
Suggested reviewers
Poem
🪧 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 (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
.github/workflows/dev-workflow.yml (1)
278-281: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionUpdate dependencies for create-release-pr job.
The create-release-pr job currently doesn't depend on the new test jobs, which means it could run even if tests fail.
Update the dependencies to include the new test jobs:
create-release-pr: runs-on: ubuntu-latest - needs: [main-ui, build-ui, api] + needs: [test-main-ui, test-build-ui, test-api, main-ui, build-ui, api]
🧹 Nitpick comments (13)
packages/api/src/utils/hash.rs (2)
1-9: Good implementation, but missing documentationThe SHA-3 hash implementation looks correct, using the sha3 crate appropriately to create a hex string representation of a hash. However, the function lacks documentation comments to explain its purpose and usage.
Consider adding documentation and slightly simplifying the return:
use sha3::Digest; +/// Computes the SHA-3 256-bit hash of the provided byte slice and returns it as a hexadecimal string. +/// +/// # Arguments +/// * `bytes` - The byte slice to hash +/// +/// # Returns +/// A lowercase hexadecimal string representation of the hash pub fn get_hash_string(bytes: &[u8]) -> String { let mut hasher = sha3::Sha3_256::new(); hasher.update(bytes); let result = hasher.finalize(); - let hash = format!("{:x}", result); - hash + format!("{:x}", result) }
1-9: Missing unit testsThis utility function doesn't have associated tests to verify its correctness. Consider adding tests to ensure the function produces expected hash values for known inputs.
#[cfg(test)] mod tests { use super::*; #[test] fn test_get_hash_string() { // Test empty input assert_eq!( get_hash_string(&[]), "a7ffc6f8bf1ed76651c14756a061d662f580ff4de43b49fa82d80a4b80f8434a" ); // Test with a simple string assert_eq!( get_hash_string(b"hello world"), "644bcc7e564373040999aac89e7622f3ca71fba1d972fd94a31c3bfbf24e3938" ); } }packages/api/Cargo.toml (1)
30-33: Consider workspace-level dependency managementSince other core dependencies are managed at the workspace level (using
workspace = true), consider doing the same for these new dependencies if they might be used in multiple packages.-uuid = "1.15.1" -rest-api = "0.1.8" -chrono = "0.4.40" -sha3 = "0.10.8" +uuid.workspace = true +rest-api.workspace = true +chrono.workspace = true +sha3.workspace = trueAnd then add these dependencies with their versions in the workspace's root Cargo.toml.
packages/api/src/utils/time.rs (1)
10-26: Consider making the timezone offset and date format configurable.The function hardcodes both the UTC+9 timezone (KST) and the "%y-%m-%d" output format, which could limit reusability across different regions or use cases.
Consider modifying the function to accept the timezone offset and date format as parameters:
-pub fn convert_utc_timestamp_to_datetime( - timestamp: i64, - adjusted_day: Option<u8>, -) -> Option<String> { - let kst_offset = FixedOffset::east_opt(9 * 3600).unwrap(); // UTC+9 +pub fn convert_utc_timestamp_to_datetime( + timestamp: i64, + adjusted_day: Option<u8>, + hours_offset: Option<i32>, + format: Option<&str>, +) -> Option<String> { + let hours_offset = hours_offset.unwrap_or(9); // Default to UTC+9 (KST) + let format = format.unwrap_or("%y-%m-%d"); + let timezone_offset = FixedOffset::east_opt(hours_offset * 3600).unwrap();And update the return statement:
- Some(datetime.format("%y-%m-%d").to_string()) + Some(datetime.format(format).to_string())packages/api/src/controllers/v1/agit/tests.rs (1)
11-30: Unused TestContext variables and test setup inconsistency.The test creates a TestContext but doesn't use any of its fields. Also, the test suite only checks unauthorized access without testing the authorized case.
Remove unused variables or utilize them in the test:
- let TestContext { - .. - } = setup().await.unwrap(); + // Only setup the test database if that's all we need + let pool = setup_test_db().await;Additionally, consider adding tests for the authorized case to ensure complete test coverage.
packages/api/src/controllers/v1/collection/tests.rs (2)
1-2: Fix indentation in test file.The entire file appears to have excessive indentation with code starting at column 4 rather than column 0, which is inconsistent with Rust's standard formatting.
Remove the additional indentation throughout the file to align with Rust's standard formatting convention.
10-32: Remove unused TestContext variables.The TestContext is created but only
nowandendpointare extracted, which aren't used in the test.Simplify the test setup by removing unused variables:
- let TestContext { - now, - endpoint, - .. - } = setup().await.unwrap(); + let pool = setup_test_db().await;.github/workflows/dev-workflow.yml (3)
12-38: Good addition of the test-main-ui job.This job effectively sets up the testing environment for the main UI component, which is a great addition to the CI/CD pipeline. The job includes all necessary steps from checkout to running tests.
Consider updating the checkout action to the latest version for better compatibility:
- - uses: actions/checkout@v3 + - uses: actions/checkout@v4🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)
15-15: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
39-65: Potential duplication in test-build-ui job.The test-build-ui job is nearly identical to test-main-ui, which suggests a possible opportunity for workflow optimization.
Consider using a reusable workflow or job template to avoid duplicating the same steps. Also, update the checkout action version:
- - uses: actions/checkout@v3 + - uses: actions/checkout@v4🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)
42-42: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
66-110: Well-structured test-api job with PostgreSQL service.The job correctly sets up a PostgreSQL service for API testing, including health checks and proper database initialization.
Two minor issues to address:
- Update the checkout action version:
- - uses: actions/checkout@v3 + - uses: actions/checkout@v4
- Remove the trailing whitespace at the end of line 111:
- run: make test - + run: make test🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)
84-84: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
packages/api/src/main.rs (3)
68-87: Well-structured TestContext struct for testing.The TestContext struct encapsulates all necessary components for testing, which is a good approach.
There's a commented out field on line 81. Either uncomment it if it's needed or remove it completely:
- // pub user: User,
95-106: Duplicated database connection logic.The setup_test_db function duplicates logic from both the main function and the setup function.
Consider extracting the database connection logic into a shared function to reduce duplication:
pub async fn connect_database(config: &DatabaseConfig) -> sqlx::Pool<sqlx::Postgres> { if let DatabaseConfig::Postgres { url, pool_size } = config { PgPoolOptions::new() .max_connections(*pool_size) .connect(url) .await .expect("Failed to connect to Postgres") } else { panic!("Database is not initialized. Call init() first."); } }Then call this function from both main() and the test setup functions.
124-146: SQL function creation in test setup.The setup function correctly creates or replaces SQL functions for timestamp handling.
Consider moving the SQL query strings to constants or a separate file to improve readability:
const SET_UPDATED_AT_FUNC: &str = "CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION set_updated_at() RETURNS TRIGGER AS $$ BEGIN NEW.updated_at := EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM now()); RETURN NEW; END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;"; const SET_CREATED_AT_FUNC: &str = "CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION set_created_at() RETURNS TRIGGER AS $$ BEGIN NEW.created_at := EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM now()); RETURN NEW; END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;";
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
Cargo.lockis excluded by!**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
.github/workflows/dev-workflow.yml(1 hunks)packages/api/Cargo.toml(2 hunks)packages/api/src/controllers/v1/agit/mod.rs(1 hunks)packages/api/src/controllers/v1/agit/tests.rs(1 hunks)packages/api/src/controllers/v1/collection/mod.rs(2 hunks)packages/api/src/controllers/v1/collection/tests.rs(1 hunks)packages/api/src/main.rs(2 hunks)packages/api/src/utils/hash.rs(1 hunks)packages/api/src/utils/mod.rs(1 hunks)packages/api/src/utils/time.rs(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)
.github/workflows/dev-workflow.yml
15-15: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
42-42: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
84-84: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
.github/workflows/dev-workflow.yml
[error] 111-111: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
🔇 Additional comments (16)
packages/api/src/utils/mod.rs (1)
1-2: LGTM - New utility modules addedThe change adds two public utility modules:
hashfor cryptographic hashing operations andtimefor datetime manipulation. This addition follows good modular design principles by organizing related functionality into separate modules.packages/api/src/controllers/v1/agit/mod.rs (1)
20-20: LGTM - Test module addedAdding a test module for the Agit controller is a good practice for ensuring code quality and preventing regressions. This change follows Rust's convention for including module tests.
8000packages/api/Cargo.toml (1)
30-33:❓ Verification inconclusive
Verify dependency versions and consider specifying feature flags
The added dependencies are appropriate for the functionality being implemented. However, it's important to consider specifying only the features you need to minimize bloat.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check if the dependencies are up-to-date and what features are available cargo outdated -p uuid -p chrono -p sha3 -p rest-api echo "======= Features available for chrono =======" cargo metadata --format-version=1 | jq '.packages[] | select(.name == "chrono") | .features' echo "======= Features available for uuid =======" cargo metadata --format-version=1 | jq '.packages[] | select(.name == "uuid") | .features'Length of output: 728
Action: Verify and Specify Minimal Feature Flags for Dependencies
The dependency versions in
packages/api/Cargo.toml(uuid = "1.15.1", rest-api = "0.1.8", chrono = "0.4.40", sha3 = "0.10.8") appear appropriate for the functionality implemented. However, to help minimize bloat, please verify locally (with Cargo available) which features are enabled by default for dependencies likechronoanduuid, and consider explicitly specifying only the needed features. For example, if certain default features are not required, you might disable them using the[default-features = false]option and only include the features you need.
- Note: The verification script did not return dependency details due to the absence of the
cargocommand in the current environment. Please run these commands in your local development setup to obtain accurate feature lists.packages/api/src/controllers/v1/collection/mod.rs (2)
21-21: Good addition of test module.Adding a dedicated test module is a good practice for organizing test code separately from the main implementation. This follows Rust's convention for test organization and improves code maintainability.
129-129:❓ Verification inconclusive
API surface change: POST endpoint removed from root path.
The route has been modified to only allow GET requests on the root path, removing the POST capability. This makes the API more RESTful by ensuring endpoints follow a consistent pattern (POST operations are still available via
/create/:agit_id).This change could potentially break existing clients that were using the removed POST endpoint at the root path. Please verify this is an intentional change and that all clients have been updated accordingly.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check if there are any client code references to POST requests to the root collection endpoint rg -i "post.*collection/\""Length of output: 28
Attention: Manual Verification on POST Endpoint Removal
The POST endpoint at the root path has been removed in favor of a GET-only endpoint (with POST operations now available via
/create/:agit_id). Although our initial search for client references to POST requests on the root endpoint returned no results, the absence of output is ambiguous. Please manually verify that no client is still attempting to use the removed POST endpoint. This check is crucial to ensure that the change is intentional and that all client integrations have been updated accordingly.
- Location:
packages/api/src/controllers/v1/collection/mod.rs(Line 129)- Key Change: Removed the POST route on
/and retained only GET (.route("/", get(Self::get_collection))).packages/api/src/utils/time.rs (1)
1-8: LGTM: Well-implemented RFC3339 timestamp conversion.The function correctly handles the conversion from RFC3339 formatted strings to UTC timestamps in milliseconds, properly handling errors through Option returns.
packages/api/src/controllers/v1/agit/tests.rs (3)
1-2: Good test configuration.The
#![cfg(test)]attribute properly marks this file for compilation only during testing, which is a good practice.
32-45: LGTM: Well-structured test for unauthorized query.This test correctly verifies that unauthorized access to the query method results in the expected Unauthorized error.
47-56: LGTM: Proper test for unauthorized delete operation.This test correctly verifies that unauthorized access to the delete method results in the expected Unauthorized error.
packages/api/src/controllers/v1/collection/tests.rs (3)
34-47: LGTM: Proper test for unauthorized query.This test correctly verifies that unauthorized access to the query method results in the expected Unauthorized error.
49-61: LGTM: Well-structured test for unauthorized update.This test correctly verifies that unauthorized access to the update method results in the expected Unauthorized error.
63-72: LGTM: Proper test for unauthorized delete operation.This test correctly verifies that unauthorized access to the delete method results in the expected Unauthorized error.
packages/api/src/main.rs (4)
11-13: Appropriate module organization.The addition of Result import and utils module helps with code organization.
89-93: User struct for test authentication.This struct provides a clear structure for user data in tests.
109-122: Well-implemented JWT token setup for tests.The function correctly handles JWT token generation for test authentication.
162-175: Well-implemented request hook for authentication.The Hook implementation correctly adds authentication headers to requests.
| use crate::controllers::v1::agit::AgitControllerV1; | ||
| use crate::dagit_tests::{TestContext, setup, setup_test_db}; | ||
| use models::{ | ||
| error as ApiError, | ||
| v1::agit::{AgitCreateRequest, AgitQuery}, | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| #[tokio::test] | ||
| async fn test_create_agit() { | ||
| let TestContext { | ||
| .. | ||
| } = setup().await.unwrap(); | ||
| let pool = setup_test_db().await; | ||
| let controller = AgitControllerV1::new(pool); | ||
|
|
||
| let result = controller | ||
| .create( | ||
| None, | ||
| AgitCreateRequest { | ||
| title: "New Agit Title".to_string(), | ||
| }, | ||
| ) | ||
| .await; | ||
|
|
||
| assert!(result.is_err()); | ||
| assert_eq!(result.err().unwrap(), ApiError::ServiceError::Unauthorized); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[tokio::test] | ||
| async fn test_query_agit() { | ||
| let pool = setup_test_db().await; | ||
| let controller = AgitControllerV1::new(pool); | ||
|
|
||
| let param = AgitQuery { | ||
| bookmark: None, | ||
| size: 10, | ||
| }; | ||
| let result = controller.query(None, param).await; | ||
|
|
||
| assert!(result.is_err()); | ||
| assert_eq!(result.err().unwrap(), ApiError::ServiceError::Unauthorized); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[tokio::test] | ||
| async fn test_delete_agit() { | ||
| let pool = setup_test_db().await; | ||
| let controller = AgitControllerV1::new(pool); | ||
|
|
||
| let result = controller.delete(1, None).await; | ||
|
|
||
| assert!(result.is_err()); | ||
| assert_eq!(result.err().unwrap(), ApiError::ServiceError::Unauthorized); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding positive test cases.
The test suite only verifies unauthorized access scenarios. While these are important, testing the successful path is also crucial.
Add tests for the authorized case to ensure the controller methods work correctly when proper authorization is provided. This would provide better test coverage and confidence in the code's functionality.
For example:
#[tokio::test]
async fn test_create_agit_authorized() {
let pool = setup_test_db().await;
let controller = AgitControllerV1::new(pool);
// Mock authorization
let auth = Some(Authorization::new("test_user", vec!["user"]));
let result = controller
.create(
auth,
AgitCreateRequest {
title: "New Agit Title".to_string(),
},
)
.await;
assert!(result.is_ok());
let agit = result.unwrap();
assert_eq!(agit.title, "New Agit Title");
}| use super::*; | ||
| use crate::dagit_tests::{TestContext, setup_test_db, setup}; | ||
| use models::{ | ||
| Result, error as ApiError, | ||
| v1::collection::{CollectionCreateRequest, CollectionQuery, CollectionUpdateRequest}, | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| #[tokio::test] | ||
| async fn test_create_collection_unauthorized() { | ||
| let TestContext { | ||
| now, | ||
| endpoint, | ||
| .. | ||
| } = setup().await.unwrap(); | ||
| let pool = setup_test_db().await; | ||
| let controller = CollectionControllerV1::new(pool); | ||
|
|
||
| let result = controller | ||
| .create( | ||
| None, | ||
| 1, | ||
| CollectionCreateRequest { | ||
| title: "New Collection Title".to_string(), | ||
| }, | ||
| ) | ||
| .await; | ||
|
|
||
| assert!(result.is_err()); | ||
| assert_eq!(result.err().unwrap(), ApiError::ServiceError::Unauthorized); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[tokio::test] | ||
| async fn test_query_collection() { | ||
| let pool = setup_test_db().await; | ||
| let controller = CollectionControllerV1::new(pool); | ||
|
|
||
| let param = CollectionQuery { | ||
| bookmark: None, | ||
| size: 10, | ||
| }; | ||
| let result = controller.query(None, param).await; | ||
|
|
||
| assert!(result.is_err()); | ||
| assert_eq!(result.err().unwrap(), ApiError::ServiceError::Unauthorized); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[tokio::test] | ||
| async fn test_update_collection() { | ||
| let pool = setup_test_db().await; | ||
| let controller = CollectionControllerV1::new(pool); | ||
|
|
||
| let param = CollectionUpdateRequest { | ||
| title: "Updated Collection Title".to_string(), | ||
| }; | ||
| let result = controller.update(None, 1, param).await; | ||
|
|
||
| assert!(result.is_err()); | ||
| assert_eq!(result.err().unwrap(), ApiError::ServiceError::Unauthorized); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[tokio::test] | ||
| async fn test_delete_collection() { | ||
| let pool = setup_test_db().await; | ||
| let controller = CollectionControllerV1::new(pool); | ||
|
|
||
| let result = controller.delete(1, None).await; | ||
|
|
||
| assert!(result.is_err()); | ||
| assert_eq!(result.err().unwrap(), ApiError::ServiceError::Unauthorized); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add positive test cases with authorization.
Similar to the agit tests, this test suite only covers unauthorized access scenarios. Testing the authorized cases would provide better coverage.
Add tests with proper authorization to ensure the controller methods function correctly when a user is authorized. This would provide better confidence in the code's functionality.
For example:
#[tokio::test]
async fn test_create_collection_authorized() {
let pool = setup_test_db().await;
let controller = CollectionControllerV1::new(pool);
// Mock authorization
let auth = Some(Authorization::new("test_user", vec!["user"]));
let result = controller
.create(
auth,
1,
CollectionCreateRequest {
title: "New Collection Title".to_string(),
},
)
.await;
assert!(result.is_ok());
let collection = result.unwrap().0;
assert_eq!(collection.title, "New Collection Title");
}| let id = uuid::Uuid::max(); | ||
| let user = User { | ||
| id: 1, | ||
| email: "j@ff.com".to_string(), | ||
| password: "password".to_string(), | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Potential security issue with hardcoded credentials.
The test setup uses hardcoded user credentials.
Even for tests, it's better to use randomly generated or environment-provided credentials:
- let id = uuid::Uuid::max();
+ let id = uuid::Uuid::new_v4();
let user = User {
id: 1,
- email: "j@ff.com".to_string(),
- password: "password".to_string(),
+ email: format!("test-{}@example.com", id),
+ password: format!("password-{}", uuid::Uuid::new_v4()),
};📝 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.
| let id = uuid::Uuid::max(); | |
| let user = User { | |
| id: 1, | |
| email: "j@ff.com".to_string(), | |
| password: "password".to_string(), | |
| }; | |
| let id = uuid::Uuid::new_v4(); | |
| let user = User { | |
| id: 1, | |
| email: format!("test-{}@example.com", id), | |
| password: format!("password-{}", uuid::Uuid::new_v4()), | |
| }; |
packages/api/src/main.rs
Outdated
| rest_api::add_header("Authorization".to_string(), format!("Bearer {}", user_token.clone())); | ||
|
|
||
| let now = SystemTime::now() | ||
| .duration_since(SystemTime::UNIX_EPOCH) | ||
| .unwrap() | ||
| .as_nanos() as u64; | ||
|
|
||
| Ok(TestContext { | ||
| pool, | ||
| app, | ||
| id: id.to_string(), | ||
| user_token, | ||
| claims, | ||
| now: now as i64, | ||
| endpoint: "http://localhost:3000".to_string(), | ||
| }) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Inconsistent time unit conversion.
There's an inconsistency in time unit conversion when setting the 'now' field.
The function converts system time to nanoseconds but then casts it to i64 for the 'now' field. This could lead to precision issues or overflows:
let now = SystemTime::now()
.duration_since(SystemTime::UNIX_EPOCH)
.unwrap()
- .as_nanos() as u64;
+ .as_secs();
Ok(TestContext {
pool,
app,
id: id.to_string(),
user_token,
claims,
- now: now as i64,
+ now: now as i64,
endpoint: "http://localhost:3000".to_string(),
})📝 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.
| rest_api::add_header("Authorization".to_string(), format!("Bearer {}", user_token.clone())); | |
| let now = SystemTime::now() | |
| .duration_since(SystemTime::UNIX_EPOCH) | |
| .unwrap() | |
| .as_nanos() as u64; | |
| Ok(TestContext { | |
| pool, | |
| app, | |
| id: id.to_string(), | |
| user_token, | |
| claims, | |
| now: now as i64, | |
| endpoint: "http://localhost:3000".to_string(), | |
| }) | |
| } | |
| rest_api::add_header("Authorization".to_string(), format!("Bearer {}", user_token.clone())); | |
| let now = SystemTime::now() | |
| .duration_since(SystemTime::UNIX_EPOCH) | |
| .unwrap() | |
| .as_secs(); | |
| Ok(TestContext { | |
| pool, | |
| app, | |
| id: id.to_string(), | |
| user_token, | |
| claims, | |
| now: now as i64, | |
| endpoint: "http://localhost:3000".to_string(), | |
| }) | |
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please write it in the "pr-testing.yml" file.
Tests should be executed for every PR.
https://github.com/biyard/voice-korea/blob/main/.github/workflows/pr-workflow.yml
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| #[tokio::test] | ||
| async fn test_create_agit() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The test should call the Server(API) as if it were being called from the Client.
Please review the code and update the test accordingly.
Reference
| assert!(result.is_err()); | ||
| assert_eq!(result.err().unwrap(), ApiError::ServiceError::Unauthorized); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you checking whether Result is an error because authentication is missing?
If the error is the intended behavior, the function name should be adjusted accordingly.
If the error is caused by another issue, the test should be written to fail in such cases.
packages/api/Cargo.toml
Outdated
| models = { workspace = true, features = ["server"] } | ||
| schemars = "0.8.22" | ||
| uuid = "1.15.1" | ||
| rest-api = "0.1.8" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
use rest-api of rust-sdk submodule instead of crate registry.
Because now, we didn't publish latest version of it.
Refer to Cargo.toml in project root.
you can use as below in Cargo.toml of project root.
rest-api = { path = "deps/rust-sdk/packages/rest-api" }
Then here
| rest-api = "0.1.8" | |
| rest-api.workspace = true |
| @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ use models::{ | |||
| }, | |||
| }; | |||
| use sqlx::postgres::PgRow; | |||
| mod tests; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| mod tests; | |
| #[cfg(test)] | |
| mod tests; |
| @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ | |||
| #![cfg(test)] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments. If you are seeing this consistently it is likely a permissions issue. Please check "Moderation" -> "Code review limits" under your organization settings.
Actionable comments posted: 4
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
packages/api/src/controllers/v1/agit/tests.rs (1)
11-30: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionEnhance test coverage with positive test cases.
The test is currently only verifying unauthorized access scenarios. While these are important, testing the successful path is also crucial.
Update the test to include both unauthorized and authorized scenarios:
#[tokio::test] async fn test_create_agit() { let TestContext { .. } = setup().await.unwrap(); let pool = setup_test_db().await; let controller = AgitControllerV1::new(pool); + // Test unauthorized access let result = controller .create( None, AgitCreateRequest { title: "New Agit Title".to_string(), }, ) .await; assert!(result.is_err()); assert_eq!(result.err().unwrap(), ApiError::ServiceError::Unauthorized); + + // Test successful creation + let auth = Some(by_axum::auth::Authorization::new("test_user", vec!["user"])); + let result = controller + .create( + auth, + AgitCreateRequest { + title: "New Agit Title".to_string(), + }, + ) + .await; + + assert!(result.is_ok()); + let agit = result.unwrap(); + assert_eq!(agit.title, "New Agit Title"); }
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
packages/api/src/main.rs (1)
174-174: Consider making agit_id more dynamic.The hardcoded value of
1foragit_idmight cause conflicts if multiple tests run concurrently. Consider using a dynamic value or ensuring it's isolated between test runs.- agit_id: 1, + agit_id: rand::thread_rng().gen_range(1000..10000), // Add rand crate to dependencies.github/workflows/dev-workflow.yml (1)
39-64: Duplicate test configuration between test-main-ui and test-build-ui.The test-main-ui and test-build-ui jobs have identical configurations. Consider consolidating them or clearly differentiating their purposes to avoid redundancy.
You could use job templating or a reusable workflow to reduce duplication:
test-template: &test-template runs-on: ubuntu-22.04 steps: - uses: actions/checkout@v4 with: submodules: recursive ssh-key: ${{ secrets.PULL_KEY_REPO }} # ... other common steps ... test-main-ui: <<: *test-template # Only add steps unique to main-ui test-build-ui: <<: *test-template # Only add steps unique to build-ui
🛑 Comments failed to post (4)
.github/workflows/ pr-workflow.yml (1)
1-118: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Good addition of PR workflow, but needs a few improvements.
The PR workflow is a good addition to test changes before merging. However, there are a few issues to address:
- The
actions/checkoutaction is using an outdated version (v3)- The file is missing a newline at the end
- Consider adding a job dependency flow to optimize the workflow
Here are the suggested fixes:
- uses: actions/checkout@v3 + uses: actions/checkout@v4Apply this change at lines 30, 60, and 96.
Also, add a newline at the end of the file at line 118.
Consider adding job dependencies:
api: runs-on: ubuntu-22.04 needs: [test] steps: # existing stepsThis would ensure the test job passes before running the build jobs.
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)
30-30: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
60-60: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
96-96: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
[error] 118-118: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
packages/api/src/controllers/v1/agit/tests.rs (3)
47-56: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add successful delete test case.
The test only verifies unauthorized access. Add a test for successful deletion with proper authorization.
#[tokio::test] async fn test_delete_agit() { let pool = setup_test_db().await; let controller = AgitControllerV1::new(pool); + // Test unauthorized access let result = controller.delete(1, None).await; assert!(result.is_err()); assert_eq!(result.err().unwrap(), ApiError::ServiceError::Unauthorized); + + // Test successful deletion + // First create an agit to delete + let auth = Some(by_axum::auth::Authorization::new("test_user", vec!["user"])); + let create_result = controller + .create( + auth.clone(), + AgitCreateRequest { + title: "Delete Test Agit".to_string(), + }, + ) + .await; + + assert!(create_result.is_ok()); + let agit = create_result.unwrap(); + + // Now delete it + let delete_result = controller.delete(agit.id, auth).await; + + assert!(delete_result.is_ok()); + let deleted_agit = delete_result.unwrap(); + assert_eq!(deleted_agit.id, agit.id); }📝 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.#[tokio::test] async fn test_update_agit() { let result = client.update(1, "Updated Agit Title".to_string()).await; assert!(result.is_ok(), "Failed to update agit: {:?}", result.err()); } #[tokio::test] async fn test_delete_agit() { let pool = setup_test_db().await; let controller = AgitControllerV1::new(pool); // Test unauthorized access let result = controller.delete(1, None).await; assert!(result.is_err()); assert_eq!(result.err().unwrap(), ApiError::ServiceError::Unauthorized); // Test successful deletion // First create an agit to delete let auth = Some(by_axum::auth::Authorization::new("test_user", vec!["user"])); let create_result = controller .create( auth.clone(), AgitCreateRequest { title: "Delete Test Agit".to_string(), }, ) .await; assert!(create_result.is_ok()); let agit = create_result.unwrap(); // Now delete it let delete_result = controller.delete(agit.id, auth).await; assert!(delete_result.is_ok()); let deleted_agit = delete_result.unwrap(); assert_eq!(deleted_agit.id, agit.id); }
32-45: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add successful query test case.
Similar to the create test, this only tests the unauthorized scenario. Add a test for successful query with proper authorization.
#[tokio::test] async fn test_query_agit() { let pool = setup_test_db().await; let controller = AgitControllerV1::new(pool); let param = AgitQuery { bookmark: None, size: 10, }; + // Test unauthorized access let result = controller.query(None, param).await; assert!(result.is_err()); assert_eq!(result.err().unwrap(), ApiError::ServiceError::Unauthorized); + + // Test successful query + let auth = Some(by_axum::auth::Authorization::new("test_user", vec!["user"])); + // Create a test agit first + let _ = controller + .create( + auth.clone(), + AgitCreateRequest { + title: "Query Test Agit".to_string(), + }, + ) + .await; + + let param = AgitQuery { + bookmark: None, + size: 10, + }; + let result = controller.query(auth, param).await; + + assert!(result.is_ok()); + let response = result.unwrap(); + assert!(response.items.len() > 0); }📝 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.let TestContext { endpoint, .. } = setup().await.unwrap(); let client = Agit::get_client(&endpoint); let result = client.delete(1).await; assert!(result.is_ok(), "Failed to delete agit: {:?}", result.err()); } #[tokio::test] async fn test_update_agit() { let TestContext { endpoint, .. } = setup().await.unwrap(); let client = Agit::get_client(&endpoint); // ... existing test_update_agit logic ... } #[tokio::test] async fn test_query_agit() { let pool = setup_test_db().await; let controller = AgitControllerV1::new(pool); let param = AgitQuery { bookmark: None, size: 10, }; // Test unauthorized access let result = controller.query(None, param).await; assert!(result.is_err()); assert_eq!(result.err().unwrap(), ApiError::ServiceError::Unauthorized); // Test successful query let auth = Some(by_axum::auth::Authorization::new("test_user", vec!["user"])); // Create a test agit first let _ = controller .create( auth.clone(), AgitCreateRequest { title: "Query Test Agit".to_string(), }, ) .await; let param = AgitQuery { bookmark: None, size: 10, }; let result = controller.query(auth, param).await; assert!(result.is_ok()); let response = result.unwrap(); assert!(response.items.len() > 0); }
1-58: 💡 Verification agent
🧩 Analysis chain
Consider testing through API endpoints instead of direct controller methods.
As noted in a previous review comment, tests should ideally call the server API as if being called from a client, rather than directly calling controller methods. This tests the entire request-response flow including routing and middleware.
Consider updating the test approach by examining this reference:
🌐 Web query:
What is the difference between testing controller methods directly versus testing through HTTP endpoints in Rust axum?💡 Result:
Testing controller methods directly versus testing through HTTP endpoints in Rust Axum involves trade-offs between isolation, speed, and testing scope. Here's a breakdown of key differences:
Direct Controller Testing
Scope: Unit tests targeting individual handler functions
Approach:
- Invoke handlers directly with mock parameters/extractors
- Use dependency injection for external services (DB, auth) via traits/mock objects
- Validate business logic without HTTP serialization
Example Setup ([Source 7][14]):
// Mock database trait #[automock] trait UserRepo { fn find_user(&self, id: i32) -> Result<User, Error>; } // Test with mock let mut mock_repo = MockUserRepo::new(); mock_repo.expect_find_user() .returning(|_| Ok(User::default())); let response = get_user_handler(Path(123), Extension(mock_repo)).await;Advantages:
- Fast execution (no network/HTTP overhead)
- Precise error type validation
- Easier to simulate edge cases
- No routing/middleware interference
HTTP Endpoint Testing
Scope: Integration tests covering full request lifecycle
Approach:
- Use
TestServerfromaxum-testcrate ([Source 1][1])- Send real HTTP requests to router instance
- Test serialization/deserialization
- Verify headers/cookies/status codes
Example Setup ([Source 5][5]):
let app = router().with_state(store); let server = TestServer::new(app)?; let response = server.get("/todos") .header("Authorization", "Bearer token") .await .assert_status_ok();Advantages:
- Tests routing configuration
- Validates middleware stack (CORS, auth)
- Ensures JSON schema correctness
- Verifies proper HTTP status code mapping
Key Comparison
Aspect Direct Testing HTTP Testing Speed Faster (µs) Slower (ms) Dependencies Mocked via traits Real/Test doubles Test Scope Isolated units Full system integration Setup Complexity Medium Higher Error Visibility Raw error types HTTP status codes When to Use Each
Direct Controller Tests:
- Core business logic validation
- Error handling workflows
- Data transformation checks
HTTP Endpoint Tests:
- API contract verification
- Authentication/authorization flows
- Content negotiation testing
- End-to-end happy path validation
Best practice is to combine both approaches - use direct tests for complex business logic ([Source 12][12]) and HTTP tests for API surface validation ([Source 8][8]). The
axum-testcrate provides utilities for both testing styles while maintaining type safety through Axum's state management system.Citations:
- 1: https://docs.rs/axum-test
- 2: https://docs.rs/axum-test/latest/axum_test/struct.TestResponse.html
- 3: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/how-do-i-get-a-the-connection-back-during-a-unit-test/123798
- 4: https://loco.rs/docs/the-app/controller/
- 5: https://www.ryan17.dev/blog/apis-with-rust-and-axum/
- 6: Doc on how to write tests tokio-rs/axum#555
- 7: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/realworld-axum-sqlx-refactoring-and-unit-testing-for-an-even-more-real-world/97607
- 8: https://redandgreen.co.uk/axum-testing-api-endpoints/rust-programming/
- 9: https://github.com/ElvisYong/rust-axum-scaffold
- 10: https://www.twilio.com/en-us/blog/build-high-performance-rest-apis-rust-axum
- 11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cA_mk4vdWY
- 12: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cYIhG_3qSo
- 13: https://docs.rs/axum/latest/axum/
- 14: https://jmmv.dev/2023/07/unit-testing-a-web-service.html
- 15: https://github.com/softwaremill/rust-axum-sqlx-redis-ws-template
- 16: https://github.com/tokio-rs/axum/blob/main/examples/testing/src/main.rs
Action Needed: Extend Testing to Cover the Full HTTP Request Lifecycle
While the current tests effectively validate the core business logic by directly invoking controller methods, they bypass critical aspects of the full API request-response cycle—such as routing, middleware, and proper serialization/deserialization. It’s advisable to supplement these unit tests with integration tests that simulate real HTTP client requests (using tools like the axum-test crate). This combined strategy will help ensure that all layers of your API—from request parsing to response generation—are functioning correctly.
- Consider adding integration tests that send real HTTP requests to your Axum router to verify routing and middleware behavior.
- Retain the current direct tests for rapid unit validation, but expand coverage by testing the entire HTTP interface.
|
the unused properties caused the fail for the API workflow. it runs smoothly locally. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it necessary to modify this file in this PR?
Also, the build-ui deployment code has been removed.
Please check it again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alright, I will check that out.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
♻️ Duplicate comments (2)
packages/api/src/main.rs (2)
147-153:⚠️ Potential issueSecurity issue: Replace hardcoded credentials with random values.
Even in tests, it's best to avoid hardcoded user credentials. Use randomly generated values instead.
- let id = uuid::Uuid::max(); + let id = uuid::Uuid::new_v4(); let user = User { id: 1, - email: "j@ff.com".to_string(), - password: "password".to_string(), + email: format!("test-{}@example.com", id), + password: format!("password-{}", uuid::Uuid::new_v4()), };
160-164: 🛠️ Refactor suggestionFix inconsistent time unit conversion.
The time is converted to nanoseconds (as_nanos) and then cast to u64, but later cast to i64 which could lead to potential overflow and precision issues. Using seconds (as_secs) would be more appropriate and consistent.
let now = SystemTime::now() .duration_since(SystemTime::UNIX_EPOCH) .unwrap() - .as_nanos() as u64; + .as_secs();And then update line 171:
- now: now as i64, + now: now as i64,
🧹 Nitpick comments (5)
packages/api/src/main.rs (5)
75-85: Commented code should be removed.Line 79 contains a commented out field
// pub user: User,. If this field is not needed, remove the comment. If it will be needed in the future, add a TODO comment explaining why it's commented out and when it will be used.pub pool: sqlx::Pool<sqlx::Postgres>, pub app: Box<dyn ApiService>, pub agit_id: i64, - // pub user: User, pub user_token: String,
93-104: Reduce code duplication in database setup.The database connection code in
setup_test_db()is duplicated in thesetup()function. Consider refactoring to callsetup_test_db()from withinsetup()to avoid duplication.pub async fn setup() -> models::Result<TestContext> { let conf = config::get(); - let pool = if let DatabaseConfig::Postgres { url, pool_size } = conf.database { - PgPoolOptions::new() - .max_connections(pool_size) - .connect(url) - .await - .expect("Failed to connect to Postgres") - } else { - panic!("Database is not initialized. Call init() first."); - }; + let pool = setup_test_db().await;Also applies to: 121-132
134-142: Consider using migrations for database setup.The SQL functions for handling timestamps are being created directly in the test setup. Consider moving these to proper database migrations that can be used both in tests and production code.
This would ensure consistent timestamp handling across environments and reduce the chance of differences between test and production behavior.
173-173: Avoid hardcoding IDs.The
agit_idis hardcoded to 1. This could cause test failures if the database already has records or if tests are run in parallel. Consider generating a unique ID for each test run.- agit_id: 1, + agit_id: rand::thread_rng().gen_range(1000..10000), // Requires rand crate
67-176: Add unit tests for the test setup functions.The test setup code itself doesn't have tests. Consider adding unit tests for
setup_test_db(),setup_jwt_token(), andsetup()to ensure they work correctly.For example, test that:
setup_test_db()returns a valid connection poolsetup_jwt_token()generates valid tokens with the expected claimssetup()creates a complete and valid test context
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
.github/workflows/dev-workflow.yml(1 hunks)packages/api/src/main.rs(3 hunks)packages/api/src/utils/hash.rs(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- packages/api/src/utils/hash.rs
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
.github/workflows/dev-workflow.yml
[error] 191-191: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: api
🔇 Additional comments (3)
.github/workflows/dev-workflow.yml (1)
1-191: Determine if workflow file changes are necessary for this PR.Based on previous comments, it seems there were questions about whether modifying this file is necessary for this PR, which was described as focused on "adding test cases and unit tests." Additionally, there was a concern about removed
build-uideployment code, though I can see thebuild-uijob is still present in the current file.🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)
15-15: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
20-20: the runner of "aws-actions/configure-aws-credentials@v2" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
74-74: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
79-79: the runner of "aws-actions/configure-aws-credentials@v2" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
134-134: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
139-139: the runner of "aws-actions/configure-aws-credentials@v2" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
182-182: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
[error] 191-191: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
packages/api/src/main.rs (2)
12-12:❓ Verification inconclusive
Verify the purpose of the new
utilsmodule.A new
utilsmodule has been added but its contents aren't shown. Ensure that this module is necessary for the tests being added and that it contains appropriate utility functions.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check what's in the utils module if [ -f "packages/api/src/utils.rs" ]; then echo "utils.rs exists as a separate file:" cat "packages/api/src/utils.rs" | head -n 20 elif [ -d "packages/api/src/utils" ]; then echo "utils exists as a directory module:" find "packages/api/src/utils" -name "*.rs" | xargs ls -la else echo "utils module not found as a separate file or directory" echo "Looking for mod utils in main.rs:" grep -A 10 "mod utils" "packages/api/src/main.rs" fiLength of output: 449
Util Module Implementation Verification
The new
utilsmodule is implemented as a directory atpackages/api/src/utils—it contains three files:
hash.rsmod.rstime.rsPlease verify that:
- The utility functions provided in
hash.rsandtime.rsare actually leveraged by the new tests.- The module’s purpose is clearly documented (consider adding documentation or comments in
mod.rsif necessary) to clarify its role in supporting the tests.
145-146:❓ Verification inconclusive
Verify API adapter conversion.
The app is created with
by_axum::new()and then converted withby_axum::into_api_adapter(app). Make sure this conversion maintains all necessary functionality for testing.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check API adapter functionality grep -r "into_api_adapter" --include="*.rs" .Length of output: 122
Action Required: Confirm API Adapter Conversion Functionality
The conversion of the app via
by_axum::into_api_adapter(app)inpackages/api/src/main.rs(lines 145–146) should be reviewed carefully. Given that the app is initially created withby_axum::new(), please ensure that converting it withinto_api_adaptermaintains all the expected behavior necessary for testing. Verify that no essential functionality is lost during this conversion step, and that all tests relying on the API adapter continue to execute correctly.
| @@ -188,4 +188,4 @@ jobs: | |||
| with: | |||
| base: main | |||
| head: dev | |||
| token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | |||
| token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Verification agent
🧩 Analysis chain
Add newline at end of file.
YAML files should end with a newline character. Currently, this file is missing a newline at the end.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if file ends with a newline character
if [ "$(tail -c1 .github/workflows/dev-workflow.yml | wc -l)" -eq 0 ]; then
echo "File does not end with a newline"
else
echo "File already ends with a newline"
fiLength of output: 148
Action Required: Append a Newline at the End of the File
The file .github/workflows/dev-workflow.yml currently does not end with a newline, which does not comply with YAML style guidelines. Please update the file to include a newline at the end.
- Verify that the file ends with an empty newline character.
- Commit the change to ensure consistent formatting.
🧰 Tools
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
[error] 191-191: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Nitpick comments (5)
.github/workflows/ pr-workflow.yml (5)
100-100: Remove Trailing Spaces
Static analysis has flagged trailing spaces on this line. Removing them will help improve YAML linting compliance.🧰 Tools
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
[error] 100-100: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
107-110: Install dioxus-cli Step: Remove Trailing Spaces
The step for installingdioxus-cliis accurate; however, please remove any trailing spaces (notably on line 110) to adhere to YAML formatting best practices.🧰 Tools
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
[error] 110-110: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
111-118: Dioxus Lint Step (Build-UI Job): Fix Indentation and Trailing Spaces
There is an indentation issue on line 113 (expected 10 spaces but found 9) and trailing spaces are flagged on line 118. Please adjust the indentation and remove trailing spaces to comply with YAML lint standards.🧰 Tools
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
[warning] 113-113: wrong indentation: expected 10 but found 9
(indentation)
[error] 118-118: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
119-128: Build Test Step (Build-UI Job): Fix Indentation and Trailing Spaces
Static analysis indicates an indentation issue on line 121 (expected 10 spaces but found 9) and trailing spaces on line 127. Please correct these formatting issues.🧰 Tools
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
[warning] 121-121: wrong indentation: expected 10 but found 9
(indentation)
[error] 127-127: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
147-154: Ensure Newline at End of File
The file is missing a newline at the end (line 154). Please add a newline to comply with standard file formatting practices.🧰 Tools
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
[error] 154-154: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/ pr-workflow.yml(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)
.github/workflows/ pr-workflow.yml
30-30: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
60-60: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
96-96: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
132-132: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
🪛 YAMLlint (1.35.1)
.github/workflows/ pr-workflow.yml
[error] 100-100: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[error] 110-110: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[warning] 113-113: wrong indentation: expected 10 but found 9
(indentation)
[error] 118-118: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[warning] 121-121: wrong indentation: expected 10 but found 9
(indentation)
[error] 127-127: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
[error] 154-154: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (3)
- GitHub Check: build-ui
- GitHub Check: main-ui
- GitHub Check: api
🔇 Additional comments (10)
.github/workflows/ pr-workflow.yml (10)
1-2: Workflow Name Defined
The workflow name "PR Testing" is clearly set and communicates its purpose.
3-6: Trigger Configuration
The workflow is triggered on key pull request events (opened, synchronize, reopened, ready_for_review), which aligns well with the CI requirements.
7-9: Global Environment Settings
The global environment variableCARGO_TERM_COLORis configured properly to maintain consistent output formatting.
10-28: Test Job Setup
The configuration for the "test" job is well-structured. The PostgreSQL service is defined with appropriate environment variables, health checks, and port mapping.
35-40: Rust Toolchain Setup (Test Job)
The Rust toolchain is correctly set up with Clippy and Rustfmt, with the appropriate target (wasm32-unknown-unknown), ensuring consistent testing and linting.
40-46: Database Initialization
The steps to install the PostgreSQL client and initialize the database using the provided SQL script are implemented correctly.
47-56: Test Execution Command
The testing command (cd packages/api && make test) and corresponding environment variables for the test run are set appropriately.
65-74: Rust Toolchain & CLI Installation (Main-UI Job)
The toolchain setup and installation ofdioxus-clivia cargo-binstall in the "main-ui" job are configured correctly.
75-82: Dioxus Lint Step (Main-UI Job)
The Dioxus linting step is configured with the proper AWS environment variables and command (dx check -p main-ui), ensuring code quality for the main UI.
83-92: Build Test Step (Main-UI Job)
The build step installs Tailwind CSS and invokes the Makefile build process with the correct environment variables. This is set up correctly.
| - uses: actions/checkout@v3 | ||
| with: | ||
| submodules: recursive | ||
| ssh-key: ${{ secrets.PULL_KEY_REPO }} | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Update Checkout Action Version (Test Job)
The test job uses actions/checkout@v3, which static analysis flags as outdated. Consider updating to a more recent version (e.g., actions/checkout@v4 if available) for enhanced compatibility.
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)
30-30: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
| - uses: actions/checkout@v3 | ||
| with: | ||
| submodules: recursive | ||
| ssh-key: ${{ secrets.PULL_KEY_REPO }} | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Update Checkout Action Version (Main-UI Job)
In the "main-ui" job, the checkout step still uses actions/checkout@v3. Please update this action to a newer version to address the static analysis concerns.
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)
60-60: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
| - uses: actions/checkout@v3 | ||
| with: | ||
| submodules: recursive | ||
| ssh-key: ${{ secrets.PULL_KEY_REPO }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Update Checkout Action Version (Build-UI Job)
The "build-ui" job also uses actions/checkout@v3. As static analysis indicates, consider updating this action to a newer version to avoid potential issues.
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)
96-96: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
| - uses: actions/checkout@v3 | ||
| with: | ||
| submodules: recursive | ||
| ssh-key: ${{ secrets.PULL_KEY_REPO }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Update Checkout Action Version (API Job)
In the "api" job, the workflow repeats the use of actions/checkout@v3. Updating to a newer version is recommended to address static analysis warnings.
🧰 Tools
🪛 actionlint (1.7.4)
132-132: the runner of "actions/checkout@v3" action is too old to run on GitHub Actions. update the action's version to fix this issue
(action)
added unit tests and updated github workflow.
help review the test mod in main.rs and it's implementation in agit/test.rs
Summary by CodeRabbit