Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

test: add test examples for prefixdb.go #22752

Open
wants to merge 24 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

xujiangyu
Copy link
Contributor

@xujiangyu xujiangyu commented Dec 4, 2024

Description

Closes: #XXXX


Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • included the correct type prefix in the PR title, you can find examples of the prefixes below:
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • updated the relevant documentation or specification, including comments for documenting Go code
  • confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

Please see Pull Request Reviewer section in the contributing guide for more information on how to review a pull request.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic, API design and naming, documentation is accurate, tests and test coverage

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Introduced a new test suite to validate the functionality of the PrefixDB implementation, ensuring reliable operations for setting, getting, checking existence, and deleting keys.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 4, 2024

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

A new test file named prefixdb_test.go has been added to the store/db package. This file contains a test suite for the PrefixDB implementation, utilizing the testing package, testify/require for assertions, and gomock for mocking dependencies. The test function TestPrefixDB validates the functionality of Set, Get, Has, and Delete operations, ensuring correct behavior and error handling for each method.

Changes

File Change Summary
store/db/prefixdb_test.go Introduced a new test file with a test function TestPrefixDB to validate PrefixDB operations.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested labels

C:Store

Suggested reviewers

  • kocubinski
  • cool-develope
  • sontrinh16
  • tac0turtle

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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 3

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
store/db/prefixdb_test.go (2)

3-10: Reorder imports according to style guidelines

The imports should be grouped in the following order:

  1. Standard library
  2. Third-party packages
  3. First-party packages

Apply this diff to fix the import ordering:

import (
	"testing"

-	"github.com/stretchr/testify/require"
-	"cosmossdk.io/store/db"
-	"cosmossdk.io/store/mock"
-	"go.uber.org/mock/gomock"
+	"go.uber.org/mock/gomock"
+	"github.com/stretchr/testify/require"
+
+	"cosmossdk.io/store/db"
+	"cosmossdk.io/store/mock"
)
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint (1.62.2)

6-6: File is not gci-ed with --skip-generated -s standard -s default -s prefix(cosmossdk.io) -s prefix(github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk) --custom-order

(gci)


9-9: File is not gci-ed with --skip-generated -s standard -s default -s prefix(cosmossdk.io) -s prefix(github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk) --custom-order

(gci)


8-8: File is not gofumpt-ed with -extra

(gofumpt)


12-19: Consider using table-driven tests for better coverage

While the current test structure is functional, consider converting it to a table-driven test to:

  1. Test different prefix values
  2. Test edge cases (empty prefix, empty key)
  3. Test error scenarios from the underlying DB

Would you like me to provide an example of how to restructure this as a table-driven test?

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yml
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7fa2356 and 579aebc.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • store/db/prefixdb_test.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (1)
store/db/prefixdb_test.go (2)

Pattern **/*.go: Review the Golang code for conformity with the Uber Golang style guide, highlighting any deviations.


Pattern **/*_test.go: "Assess the unit test code assessing sufficient code coverage for the changes associated in the pull request"

🪛 golangci-lint (1.62.2)
store/db/prefixdb_test.go

6-6: File is not gci-ed with --skip-generated -s standard -s default -s prefix(cosmossdk.io) -s prefix(github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk) --custom-order

(gci)


9-9: File is not gci-ed with --skip-generated -s standard -s default -s prefix(cosmossdk.io) -s prefix(github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk) --custom-order

(gci)


49-49: File is not gci-ed with --skip-generated -s standard -s default -s prefix(cosmossdk.io) -s prefix(github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk) --custom-order

(gci)


8-8: File is not gofumpt-ed with -extra

(gofumpt)

Comment on lines +20 to +32
key := []byte("key1")
value := []byte("value1")
mockDB.EXPECT().Set(gomock.Eq(append(prefix, key...)), gomock.Eq(value)).Return(nil)

err := pdb.Set(key, value)
require.NoError(t, err)

mockDB.EXPECT().Get(gomock.Eq(append(prefix, key...))).Return(value, nil)

returnedValue, err := pdb.Get(key)
require.NoError(t, err)
require.Equal(t, value, returnedValue)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Add test cases for error scenarios and edge cases

The current test coverage for Set/Get operations could be enhanced by adding:

  1. Error scenarios from the underlying DB
  2. Edge cases with nil/empty values
  3. Concurrent access scenarios
  4. Large key/value pairs

Example test cases to add:

// Test error propagation
mockDB.EXPECT().Set(gomock.Any(), gomock.Any()).Return(errors.New("db error"))
err := pdb.Set(key, value)
require.Error(t, err)

// Test nil value
mockDB.EXPECT().Set(gomock.Any(), nil).Return(nil)
err = pdb.Set(key, nil)
require.NoError(t, err)

Comment on lines +33 to +49
mockDB.EXPECT().Has(gomock.Eq(append(prefix, key...))).Return(true, nil)

has, err := pdb.Has(key)
require.NoError(t, err)
require.True(t, has)

mockDB.EXPECT().Delete(gomock.Eq(append(prefix, key...))).Return(nil)

err = pdb.Delete(key)
require.NoError(t, err)

mockDB.EXPECT().Has(gomock.Eq(append(prefix, key...))).Return(false, nil)

has, err = pdb.Has(key)
require.NoError(t, err)
require.False(t, has)
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Enhance Has/Delete operations test coverage

The test coverage for Has/Delete operations should include:

  1. Error scenarios from the underlying DB
  2. Multiple key operations
  3. Delete of non-existent keys

Example test cases to add:

// Test Has error propagation
mockDB.EXPECT().Has(gomock.Any()).Return(false, errors.New("db error"))
_, err = pdb.Has(key)
require.Error(t, err)

// Test Delete non-existent key
mockDB.EXPECT().Delete(gomock.Any()).Return(nil)
err = pdb.Delete([]byte("non-existent-key"))
require.NoError(t, err)
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint (1.62.2)

49-49: File is not gci-ed with --skip-generated -s standard -s default -s prefix(cosmossdk.io) -s prefix(github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk) --custom-order

(gci)

Comment on lines +1 to +49
package db_test

import (
"testing"

"github.com/stretchr/testify/require"
"cosmossdk.io/store/db"
"cosmossdk.io/store/mock"
"go.uber.org/mock/gomock"
)

func TestPrefixDB(t *testing.T) {
mockCtrl := gomock.NewController(t)
defer mockCtrl.Finish()

mockDB := mock.NewMockKVStoreWithBatch(mockCtrl)
prefix := []byte("test:")
pdb := db.NewPrefixDB(mockDB, prefix)

key := []byte("key1")
value := []byte("value1")
mockDB.EXPECT().Set(gomock.Eq(append(prefix, key...)), gomock.Eq(value)).Return(nil)

err := pdb.Set(key, value)
require.NoError(t, err)

mockDB.EXPECT().Get(gomock.Eq(append(prefix, key...))).Return(value, nil)

returnedValue, err := pdb.Get(key)
require.NoError(t, err)
require.Equal(t, value, returnedValue)

mockDB.EXPECT().Has(gomock.Eq(append(prefix, key...))).Return(true, nil)

has, err := pdb.Has(key)
require.NoError(t, err)
require.True(t, has)

mockDB.EXPECT().Delete(gomock.Eq(append(prefix, key...))).Return(nil)

err = pdb.Delete(key)
require.NoError(t, err)

mockDB.EXPECT().Has(gomock.Eq(append(prefix, key...))).Return(false, nil)

has, err = pdb.Has(key)
require.NoError(t, err)
require.False(t, has)
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codebase verification

Test coverage needs significant improvement

The current test file is missing critical test coverage for required interface methods:

  1. Iterator and ReverseIterator methods are completely untested, despite being core requirements of the KVStore interface
  2. Batch operations through the KVStoreWithBatch interface are not covered
  3. No tests for edge cases like empty prefix, nil keys, or concurrent access scenarios

Required test additions:

  • Add tests for forward and reverse iteration over prefixed keys
  • Include batch operation tests as required by KVStoreWithBatch interface
  • Add tests for concurrent access safety (the struct has a mutex)
  • Cover edge cases with empty/nil inputs
🔗 Analysis chain

Verify test coverage with additional scenarios

While the test provides good basic coverage, consider adding:

  1. Batch operations testing
  2. Iterator testing if supported by PrefixDB
  3. Performance tests for large datasets
  4. Recovery from panic scenarios

Run the following script to check test coverage:


Let me gather more information about the interface methods and implementations to provide a comprehensive assessment.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check test coverage for prefixdb package

# Search for PrefixDB methods that might need testing
ast-grep --pattern 'type PrefixDB struct {
  $$$
}'

# Search for interface methods that should be tested
ast-grep --pattern 'type DB interface {
  $$$
}'

Length of output: 547


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for all methods implemented by PrefixDB
ast-grep --pattern 'func (p *PrefixDB) $_($$$) $$$'

# Search for KVStoreWithBatch interface definition
ast-grep --pattern 'type KVStoreWithBatch interface {
  $$$
}'

# Search for any existing iterator or batch related tests
rg -l "Iterator|Batch" store/db/prefixdb_test.go

Length of output: 500


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's check the KVStore interface methods
ast-grep --pattern 'type KVStore interface {
  $$$
}'

# Check PrefixDB implementation for iterator and batch methods
rg -A 5 "func \(p \*PrefixDB\)" store/db/prefixdb.go

# Check if there are any other test files for PrefixDB
fd prefixdb.*test

Length of output: 1513

🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint (1.62.2)

6-6: File is not gci-ed with --skip-generated -s standard -s default -s prefix(cosmossdk.io) -s prefix(github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk) --custom-order

(gci)


9-9: File is not gci-ed with --skip-generated -s standard -s default -s prefix(cosmossdk.io) -s prefix(github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk) --custom-order

(gci)


49-49: File is not gci-ed with --skip-generated -s standard -s default -s prefix(cosmossdk.io) -s prefix(github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk) --custom-order

(gci)


8-8: File is not gofumpt-ed with -extra

(gofumpt)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants