CU-86b1g1mye_Generar-un-enum-de-FieldNames-para-validar-que-el-Field-… #195
Conversation
📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe recent update introduces two new enumerations, Changes
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}
src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/SRU2023FieldEnum.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/SRU2023FieldEnum.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
ptorres-prowide
force-pushed
the
CU-86b1g1mye_Generar-un-enum-de-FieldNames-para-validar-que-el-Field-exista
branch
from
9350e3d
to
a3c62d2
Compare
src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnum.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnum.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
zubri
force-pushed
the
CU-86b1g1mye_Generar-un-enum-de-FieldNames-para-validar-que-el-Field-exista
branch
from
b0b665c
to
287b11b
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnum.javais excluded by!**/generated/**
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- CHANGELOG.md (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnumTest.java (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint
CHANGELOG.md
3-3: Expected: h2; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
4-4: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
3-3: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines(MD022, blanks-around-headings)
4-4: null
Lists should be surrounded by blank lines(MD032, blanks-around-lists)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnumTest.java (2)
1-7: LGTM: Proper test class structure and imports.The test class is well-structured with appropriate package declaration and imports for JUnit 5. The class name
FieldEnumTestfollows the convention for test classes.
25-31: LGTM: Comprehensive testing offromFieldName()for invalid inputs.The test method effectively verifies that
fromFieldName()returns null for various invalid inputs, including non-existent codes and an empty string. This is a good practice for ensuring robust error handling.
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnumTest.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnumTest.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnumTest.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnumTest.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- CHANGELOG.md (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnumTest.java (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint
CHANGELOG.md
3-3: Expected: h2; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
4-4: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
3-3: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines(MD022, blanks-around-headings)
4-4: null
Lists should be surrounded by blank lines(MD032, blanks-around-lists)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnumTest.java (3)
11-15: LGTM: Effective parameterized test forfieldName()method.The test method efficiently verifies the
fieldName()method for multiple enum values using a parameterized approach. This design allows for easy addition of more test cases in the future.
17-21: LGTM: Effective parameterized test forfromFieldName()method with valid inputs.The test method efficiently verifies the
fromFieldName()method for multiple valid field name strings using a parameterized approach. This design allows for easy addition of more test cases in the future.
1-49: Overall, excellent test coverage for theFieldEnumclass.This test suite provides comprehensive coverage for the
FieldEnumclass, including:
- Parameterized tests for
fieldName()andfromFieldName()methods with valid inputs.- Tests for invalid inputs and edge cases for
fromFieldName().- A consistency check for all enum values.
The use of parameterized tests allows for easy expansion of test cases in the future. The additional edge cases suggested in a previous review have been incorporated, further improving the robustness of the tests.
Minor improvements have been suggested for naming conventions and error messages, which will enhance the maintainability and debuggability of the tests.
Great job on creating a thorough and well-structured test suite!
| import org.junit.jupiter.params.ParameterizedTest; | ||
| import org.junit.jupiter.params.provider.CsvSource; | ||
|
|
||
| class FieldEnu5mTest { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix typo in class name.
There's a typo in the class name. It should be FieldEnumTest instead of FieldEnu5mTest.
Apply this diff to fix the typo:
-class FieldEnu5mTest {
+class FieldEnumTest {📝 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.
| class FieldEnu5mTest { | |
| class FieldEnumTest { |
| @Test | ||
| void testfromFieldNameInvalid() { | ||
| // Validate that fromFieldName returns null when an invalid code is provided | ||
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("999A")); | ||
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("ABC")); | ||
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("")); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Good coverage of invalid inputs for fromFieldName() method.
The test method effectively verifies that fromFieldName() returns null for various invalid inputs. However, the method name doesn't follow Java naming conventions.
Consider renaming the method to follow Java naming conventions:
-void testfromFieldNameInvalid() {
+void testFromFieldNameInvalid() {📝 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.
| @Test | |
| void testfromFieldNameInvalid() { | |
| // Validate that fromFieldName returns null when an invalid code is provided | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("999A")); | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("ABC")); | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("")); | |
| } | |
| @Test | |
| void testFromFieldNameInvalid() { | |
| // Validate that fromFieldName returns null when an invalid code is provided | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("999A")); | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("ABC")); | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("")); | |
| } |
| @Test | ||
| void testAllEnumValues() { | ||
| // Validate that all enum values have the correct field name | ||
| for (FieldEnum field : FieldEnum.values()) { | ||
| assertEquals(field.name().substring(1), field.fieldName()); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Comprehensive validation of all enum values.
The test method effectively verifies the consistency between each enum's name and its field name for all values in FieldEnum. This is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the FieldEnum class.
To make the test more robust and informative, consider modifying it to provide more detailed error messages:
@Test
void testAllEnumValues() {
// Validate that all enum values have the correct field name
for (FieldEnum field : FieldEnum.values()) {
- assertEquals(field.name().substring(1), field.fieldName());
+ String expectedFieldName = field.name().substring(1);
+ assertEquals(expectedFieldName, field.fieldName(),
+ String.format("Mismatch for enum %s: expected %s, but got %s",
+ field.name(), expectedFieldName, field.fieldName()));
}
}This modification will make it easier to identify which specific enum value fails the test, if any.
📝 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.
| @Test | |
| void testAllEnumValues() { | |
| // Validate that all enum values have the correct field name | |
| for (FieldEnum field : FieldEnum.values()) { | |
| assertEquals(field.name().substring(1), field.fieldName()); | |
| } | |
| } | |
| @Test | |
| void testAllEnumValues() { | |
| // Validate that all enum values have the correct field name | |
| for (FieldEnum field : FieldEnum.values()) { | |
| String expectedFieldName = field.name().substring(1); | |
| assertEquals(expectedFieldName, field.fieldName(), | |
| String.format("Mismatch for enum %s: expected %s, but got %s", | |
| field.name(), expectedFieldName, field.fieldName())); | |
| } | |
| } |
| @Test | ||
| void testfromFieldNameEdgeCases() { | ||
| // Validate edge cases, such as lowercase inputs, to ensure the method is case-sensitive | ||
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("11a")); // should return null because "11a" is lowercase | ||
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName(" 11A")); // should return null because of the leading space | ||
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("11A ")); // should return null because of the trailing space | ||
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName(null)); // Test null input | ||
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("11")); // Test partial field name | ||
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("111A")); // Test invalid format with correct length | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
LGTM: Comprehensive coverage of edge cases for fromFieldName() method.
The test method effectively verifies that fromFieldName() handles various edge cases correctly, including case sensitivity, leading/trailing spaces, null input, partial field names, and invalid formats. The additional test cases suggested in a previous review have been incorporated, which improves the overall test coverage.
However, the method name doesn't follow Java naming conventions.
Consider renaming the method to follow Java naming conventions:
-void testfromFieldNameEdgeCases() {
+void testFromFieldNameEdgeCases() {📝 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.
| @Test | |
| void testfromFieldNameEdgeCases() { | |
| // Validate edge cases, such as lowercase inputs, to ensure the method is case-sensitive | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("11a")); // should return null because "11a" is lowercase | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName(" 11A")); // should return null because of the leading space | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("11A ")); // should return null because of the trailing space | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName(null)); // Test null input | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("11")); // Test partial field name | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("111A")); // Test invalid format with correct length | |
| } | |
| @Test | |
| void testFromFieldNameEdgeCases() { | |
| // Validate edge cases, such as lowercase inputs, to ensure the method is case-sensitive | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("11a")); // should return null because "11a" is lowercase | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName(" 11A")); // should return null because of the leading space | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("11A ")); // should return null because of the trailing space | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName(null)); // Test null input | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("11")); // Test partial field name | |
| assertNull(FieldEnum.fromFieldName("111A")); // Test invalid format with correct length | |
| } |
| @@ -1,5 +1,8 @@ | |||
| # Prowide Core - CHANGELOG | |||
|
|
|||
| #### 9.4.18 - SNAPSHOT | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Adjust the heading level for version 9.4.18 - SNAPSHOT.
The heading level should be consistent with the previous version headings. Use an h2 heading (##) instead of h4 (####). Also, add a blank line before the heading for better readability.
Apply this diff to correct the formatting:
+
-#### 9.4.18 - SNAPSHOT
+## 9.4.18 - SNAPSHOT📝 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.
| #### 9.4.18 - SNAPSHOT | |
| ## 9.4.18 - SNAPSHOT |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
3-3: Expected: h2; Actual: h4
Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time(MD001, heading-increment)
3-3: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines(MD022, blanks-around-headings)
| @@ -1,5 +1,8 @@ | |||
| # Prowide Core - CHANGELOG | |||
|
|
|||
| #### 9.4.18 - SNAPSHOT | |||
| * Added new `FieldEnum` with all the available field names | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct the list formatting.
The list item should not be indented and should be preceded by a blank line to adhere to markdown standards and maintain consistency with previous entries.
Apply this diff to correct the formatting:
## 9.4.18 - SNAPSHOT
- * Added new `FieldEnum` with all the available field names
+* Added new `FieldEnum` with all the available field names📝 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.
| * Added new `FieldEnum` with all the available field names | |
| * Added new `FieldEnum` with all the available field names |
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
4-4: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
4-4: null
Lists should be surrounded by blank lines(MD032, blanks-around-lists)
zubri
deleted the
CU-86b1g1mye_Generar-un-enum-de-FieldNames-para-validar-que-el-Field-exista
branch
…exista
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
SRU2023FieldEnum, enhancing field management by providing a structured enumeration of field names for improved data handling and validation.FieldEnum, offering a comprehensive list of field constants to streamline reference and enhance code readability.Documentation
CHANGELOG.mdto reflect the changes and enhancements in version9.4.18.Tests
FieldEnumclass to ensure functionality and handle edge cases effectively.