CU-86b1uerqp: Add enum with all possible MT sequence paths SRU2024 #209
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe pull request introduces updates to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🛑 Comments failed to post (4)
build.gradle (2)
37-37: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Remove commented version override.
The commented version override
//project.version = "${SRU}-9.5.0"should be removed to maintain clean code. If this is intended for future use, consider tracking it in a separate issue or documentation.
65-69: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Align xmlunit dependency versions.
While the test dependency updates look good, there's an inconsistency in xmlunit versions:
- xmlunit-core: 2.10.0
- xmlunit-matchers and xmlunit-assertj: 2.9.0
Consider aligning all xmlunit dependencies to version 2.10.0 for consistency.
testImplementation 'org.xmlunit:xmlunit-core:2.10.0' -testImplementation 'org.xmlunit:xmlunit-matchers:2.9.0' -testImplementation 'org.xmlunit:xmlunit-assertj:2.9.0' +testImplementation 'org.xmlunit:xmlunit-matchers:2.10.0' +testImplementation 'org.xmlunit:xmlunit-assertj:2.10.0'📝 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.testImplementation 'org.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter:5.10.2' testImplementation 'org.assertj:assertj-core:3.25.3' testImplementation 'org.xmlunit:xmlunit-core:2.10.0' testImplementation 'org.xmlunit:xmlunit-matchers:2.10.0' testImplementation 'org.xmlunit:xmlunit-assertj:2.10.0'CHANGELOG.md (2)
4-4: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Document the purpose and benefits of the new enum.
The changelog entry for
MtSequenceInfoEnumcould be more descriptive. Consider adding:
- Why this enum was added
- What problem it solves
- How it helps developers
Consider expanding the description:
- * Added new `MtSequenceInfoEnum` with all the available inner sequences of specific MT schemas + * Added new `MtSequenceInfoEnum` to provide type-safe access to all available inner sequences of specific MT schemas, improving validation and reducing runtime errors when working with MT sequence paths📝 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 `MtSequenceInfoEnum` to provide type-safe access to all available inner sequences of specific MT schemas, improving validation and reducing runtime errors when working with MT sequence paths🧰 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)
14-18: 💡 Codebase verification
SRU2024 implementation verification requires attention
The verification has revealed mixed results:
✅ Dependency updates are correctly implemented in build.gradle:
- commons-lang3 -> 3.14.0
- gson -> 2.11.0
❌ The deprecation phase documentation link is not accessible (404 error):
Please ensure the deprecation phase documentation is published and accessible before the SRU2024 release. The documentation is critical for users to understand the impact of deprecated features.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify SRU2024 implementation details.
The changelog mentions SWIFT Standard Release Update 2024 going live on November 16, 2025. This is a significant update that requires careful review:
- The deprecation phase link should be verified
- The dependency updates to commons-lang3 and gson should be validated
Let me verify the dependency versions in the build files and check for any potential issues.
The search results confirm:
- The dependency versions in build.gradle match exactly with what's mentioned in the changelog:
build.gradle: implementation 'org.apache.commons:commons-lang3:3.14.0' build.gradle: implementation 'com.google.code.gson:gson:2.11.0'
- The extensive use of gson throughout the codebase (as shown by the numerous imports) indicates this is a critical dependency that needs careful validation.
Let me verify the deprecation phase link next.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the dependency versions in build files # Test: Check build files for updated dependency versions rg -A 2 "commons-lang3|gson"Length of output: 276987
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check if the deprecation phase documentation exists curl -s -I https://dev.prowidesoftware.com/SRU2024/getting-started/deprecation/Length of output: 698
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
15-15: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
16-16: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
17-17: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
18-18: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
14-14: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines(MD022, blanks-around-headings)
15-15: null
Lists should be surrounded by blank lines(MD032, blanks-around-lists)
16-16: null
Bare URL used(MD034, no-bare-urls)
ptorres-prowide
force-pushed
the
CU-86b1uerqp_Generar-un-enum-de-MTs-para-validar-sus-secuencias-y-paths_SRU2024
branch
from
b59b20d
to
afab311
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range comments (1)
CHANGELOG.md (1)
Line range hint
1-24: Consider improving the markdown formatting.The markdown structure could be enhanced for better readability and compliance with markdown best practices:
Apply these changes:
-# Prowide Core - CHANGELOG +# Prowide Core - CHANGELOG + +## 9.5.3 - SNAPSHOT +* Added new `MtSequenceInfoEnum` with all the available inner sequences of specific MT schemas -#### 9.5.2 - October 2024 +## 9.5.2 - October 2024 * Added new `FieldEnum` with all the available field names * Code security improvements as per CodeQL recommendationsThe changes will:
- Add proper spacing around headings
- Use consistent heading levels (h2 instead of h4)
- Fix list indentation
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
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)
7-7: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
8-8: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
3-3: Expected: 0 or 2; Actual: 1
Trailing spaces(MD009, no-trailing-spaces)
3-3: Expected: 1; Actual: 0; Below
Headings should be surrounded by blank lines(MD022, blanks-around-headings)
6-6: 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)
7-7: null
Lists should be surrounded by blank lines(MD032, blanks-around-lists)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceInfoEnum.javais excluded by!**/generated/**
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
CHANGELOG.md(1 hunks)src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceInfoTest.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: 0 or 2; Actual: 1
Trailing spaces
(MD009, no-trailing-spaces)
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 (1)
CHANGELOG.md (1)
3-5: LGTM! The changelog entry follows the established format.
The new version 9.5.3 (SNAPSHOT) is properly documented with the addition of the MtSequenceInfoEnum enumeration.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
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: 0 or 2; Actual: 1
Trailing spaces
(MD009, no-trailing-spaces)
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)
| @Test | ||
| void testFromFieldNameInvalid() { | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("INVALID")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("MT")); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Enhance invalid field name test coverage
Consider adding tests for:
- Null input
- Field names with invalid formats but correct prefix
@Test
void testFromFieldNameInvalid() {
+ assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf(null));
assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("INVALID"));
assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf(""));
assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("MT"));
+ assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("MT999999"));
+ assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("MTxxx"));
}📝 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() { | |
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("INVALID")); | |
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("")); | |
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("MT")); | |
| } | |
| @Test | |
| void testFromFieldNameInvalid() { | |
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf(null)); | |
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("INVALID")); | |
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("")); | |
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("MT")); | |
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("MT999999")); | |
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("MTxxx")); | |
| } |
| class MtSequenceInfoEnumTest { | ||
|
|
||
| @ParameterizedTest | ||
| @CsvSource({ | ||
| "MT101, 'A,B'", | ||
| "MT102, 'A,B,C'", | ||
| "MT300, 'A,B,B/B1,B/B2,C,D,D/D1,E,E/E1,E/E1/E1a,E/E1/E1a/E1a1,F'", | ||
| "MT508, 'A,A/A1,B,B/B1,C'" | ||
| }) | ||
| void testGetSequencesInfo(MtSequenceInfoEnum sequenceInfo, String expectedSequences) { | ||
| assertEquals(toSet(expectedSequences), sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo()); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private Set<String> toSet(String input) { | ||
| return Arrays.stream(input.split(",")).collect(Collectors.toSet()); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @ParameterizedTest | ||
| @CsvSource({"MT101, MT101", "MT102, MT102", "MT508, MT508"}) | ||
| void testFromFieldNameValid(String fieldName, MtSequenceInfoEnum expectedEnum) { | ||
| assertEquals(expectedEnum, MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf(fieldName)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void testFromFieldNameInvalid() { | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("INVALID")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("MT")); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void testAllEnumValuesHaveSequences() { | ||
| for (MtSequenceInfoEnum sequenceInfo : MtSequenceInfoEnum.values()) { | ||
| assertNotNull(sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(), "Sequence info should not be null"); | ||
| assertFalse(sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo().isEmpty(), "Sequence info should not be empty"); | ||
| // Validate sequence format | ||
| Set<String> sequences = sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(); | ||
| for (String sequence : sequences) { | ||
| assertTrue( | ||
| sequence.matches("^[A-Z](?:/[A-Z][0-9]?(?:[a-z][0-9]?[A-Za-z0-9]*)?)*$"), | ||
| "Sequence " + sequence + " should match expected format"); | ||
| } | ||
| // Check for duplicates | ||
| assertEquals( | ||
| sequences.size(), | ||
| Arrays.stream(sequences.toArray()).distinct().count(), | ||
| "Sequences should not contain duplicates"); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider introducing a test fixture for common test data
To improve maintainability and reduce duplication, consider extracting common test data into a test fixture class. This would make it easier to maintain the expected sequences and add new message types.
+ /**
+ * Test fixture containing expected sequence information for different MT types.
+ */
+ private static class MtSequenceTestData {
+ static final class SequenceInfo {
+ final String mtType;
+ final Set<String> sequences;
+
+ SequenceInfo(String mtType, String... sequences) {
+ this.mtType = mtType;
+ this.sequences = Set.of(sequences);
+ }
+ }
+
+ static final List<SequenceInfo> TEST_CASES = List.of(
+ new SequenceInfo("MT101", "A", "B"),
+ new SequenceInfo("MT102", "A", "B", "C"),
+ // Add more test cases here
+ );
+ }Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| private Set<String> toSet(String input) { | ||
| return Arrays.stream(input.split(",")).collect(Collectors.toSet()); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add input validation and whitespace handling to helper method
The utility method should handle edge cases and ensure consistent results.
private Set<String> toSet(String input) {
- return Arrays.stream(input.split(",")).collect(Collectors.toSet());
+ if (input == null || input.trim().isEmpty()) {
+ return Collections.emptySet();
+ }
+ return Arrays.stream(input.split(","))
+ .map(String::trim)
+ .filter(s -> !s.isEmpty())
+ .collect(Collectors.toSet());
}📝 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.
| private Set<String> toSet(String input) { | |
| return Arrays.stream(input.split(",")).collect(Collectors.toSet()); | |
| } | |
| private Set<String> toSet(String input) { | |
| if (input == null || input.trim().isEmpty()) { | |
| return Collections.emptySet(); | |
| } | |
| return Arrays.stream(input.split(",")) | |
| .map(String::trim) | |
| .filter(s -> !s.isEmpty()) | |
| .collect(Collectors.toSet()); | |
| } |
| @ParameterizedTest | ||
| @CsvSource({ | ||
| "MT101, 'A,B'", | ||
| "MT102, 'A,B,C'", | ||
| "MT300, 'A,B,B/B1,B/B2,C,D,D/D1,E,E/E1,E/E1/E1a,E/E1/E1a/E1a1,F'", | ||
| "MT508, 'A,A/A1,B,B/B1,C'" | ||
| }) | ||
| void testGetSequencesInfo(MtSequenceInfoEnum sequenceInfo, String expectedSequences) { | ||
| assertEquals(toSet(expectedSequences), sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo()); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider enhancing test coverage and documentation
While the parameterized test effectively validates basic sequence information, consider:
- Adding Javadoc to explain the expected sequence format and test purpose
- Including edge cases such as messages with single sequences or complex nested structures
+ /**
+ * Validates that the sequence information returned by MtSequenceInfoEnum matches
+ * the expected sequences for different MT message types.
+ * Format: A = main sequence, B/B1 = nested sequence
+ *
+ * @param sequenceInfo The enum value to test
+ * @param expectedSequences Comma-separated list of expected sequences
+ */
@ParameterizedTest
@CsvSource({
"MT101, 'A,B'",
"MT102, 'A,B,C'",
"MT300, 'A,B,B/B1,B/B2,C,D,D/D1,E,E/E1,E/E1/E1a,E/E1/E1a/E1a1,F'",
- "MT508, 'A,A/A1,B,B/B1,C'"
+ "MT508, 'A,A/A1,B,B/B1,C'",
+ // Add edge cases
+ "MT999, 'A'", // Single sequence
+ "MT199, 'A/A1/A1a/A1a1'" // Deeply nested
})📝 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.
| @ParameterizedTest | |
| @CsvSource({ | |
| "MT101, 'A,B'", | |
| "MT102, 'A,B,C'", | |
| "MT300, 'A,B,B/B1,B/B2,C,D,D/D1,E,E/E1,E/E1/E1a,E/E1/E1a/E1a1,F'", | |
| "MT508, 'A,A/A1,B,B/B1,C'" | |
| }) | |
| void testGetSequencesInfo(MtSequenceInfoEnum sequenceInfo, String expectedSequences) { | |
| assertEquals(toSet(expectedSequences), sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo()); | |
| } | |
| /** | |
| * Validates that the sequence information returned by MtSequenceInfoEnum matches | |
| * the expected sequences for different MT message types. | |
| * Format: A = main sequence, B/B1 = nested sequence | |
| * | |
| * @param sequenceInfo The enum value to test | |
| * @param expectedSequences Comma-separated list of expected sequences | |
| */ | |
| @ParameterizedTest | |
| @CsvSource({ | |
| "MT101, 'A,B'", | |
| "MT102, 'A,B,C'", | |
| "MT300, 'A,B,B/B1,B/B2,C,D,D/D1,E,E/E1,E/E1/E1a,E/E1/E1a/E1a1,F'", | |
| "MT508, 'A,A/A1,B,B/B1,C'", | |
| // Add edge cases | |
| "MT999, 'A'", // Single sequence | |
| "MT199, 'A/A1/A1a/A1a1'" // Deeply nested | |
| }) | |
| void testGetSequencesInfo(MtSequenceInfoEnum sequenceInfo, String expectedSequences) { | |
| assertEquals(toSet(expectedSequences), sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo()); | |
| } |
| @Test | ||
| void testAllEnumValuesHaveSequences() { | ||
| for (MtSequenceInfoEnum sequenceInfo : MtSequenceInfoEnum.values()) { | ||
| assertNotNull(sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(), "Sequence info should not be null"); | ||
| assertFalse(sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo().isEmpty(), "Sequence info should not be empty"); | ||
| // Validate sequence format | ||
| Set<String> sequences = sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(); | ||
| for (String sequence : sequences) { | ||
| assertTrue( | ||
| sequence.matches("^[A-Z](?:/[A-Z][0-9]?(?:[a-z][0-9]?[A-Za-z0-9]*)?)*$"), | ||
| "Sequence " + sequence + " should match expected format"); | ||
| } | ||
| // Check for duplicates | ||
| assertEquals( | ||
| sequences.size(), | ||
| Arrays.stream(sequences.toArray()).distinct().count(), | ||
| "Sequences should not contain duplicates"); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve maintainability and error reporting of validation test
The comprehensive validation test could be enhanced in several ways:
+ private static final String SEQUENCE_PATTERN = "^[A-Z](?:/[A-Z][0-9]?(?:[a-z][0-9]?[A-Za-z0-9]*)?)*$";
+
@Test
void testAllEnumValuesHaveSequences() {
for (MtSequenceInfoEnum sequenceInfo : MtSequenceInfoEnum.values()) {
+ String enumName = sequenceInfo.name();
- assertNotNull(sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(), "Sequence info should not be null");
- assertFalse(sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo().isEmpty(), "Sequence info should not be empty");
+ assertNotNull(sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(),
+ String.format("Sequence info for %s should not be null", enumName));
+ assertFalse(sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo().isEmpty(),
+ String.format("Sequence info for %s should not be empty", enumName));
// Validate sequence format
Set<String> sequences = sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo();
for (String sequence : sequences) {
assertTrue(
- sequence.matches("^[A-Z](?:/[A-Z][0-9]?(?:[a-z][0-9]?[A-Za-z0-9]*)?)*$"),
- "Sequence " + sequence + " should match expected format");
+ sequence.matches(SEQUENCE_PATTERN),
+ String.format("Sequence '%s' in %s should match format: %s",
+ sequence, enumName, SEQUENCE_PATTERN));
}
// Check for duplicates
- assertEquals(
- sequences.size(),
- Arrays.stream(sequences.toArray()).distinct().count(),
- "Sequences should not contain duplicates");
+ Set<String> uniqueSequences = new HashSet<>(sequences);
+ assertEquals(sequences.size(), uniqueSequences.size(),
+ String.format("Sequences in %s contain duplicates: %s",
+ enumName, sequences));
}
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| @Test | |
| void testAllEnumValuesHaveSequences() { | |
| for (MtSequenceInfoEnum sequenceInfo : MtSequenceInfoEnum.values()) { | |
| assertNotNull(sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(), "Sequence info should not be null"); | |
| assertFalse(sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo().isEmpty(), "Sequence info should not be empty"); | |
| // Validate sequence format | |
| Set<String> sequences = sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(); | |
| for (String sequence : sequences) { | |
| assertTrue( | |
| sequence.matches("^[A-Z](?:/[A-Z][0-9]?(?:[a-z][0-9]?[A-Za-z0-9]*)?)*$"), | |
| "Sequence " + sequence + " should match expected format"); | |
| } | |
| // Check for duplicates | |
| assertEquals( | |
| sequences.size(), | |
| Arrays.stream(sequences.toArray()).distinct().count(), | |
| "Sequences should not contain duplicates"); | |
| } | |
| } | |
| private static final String SEQUENCE_PATTERN = "^[A-Z](?:/[A-Z][0-9]?(?:[a-z][0-9]?[A-Za-z0-9]*)?)*$"; | |
| @Test | |
| void testAllEnumValuesHaveSequences() { | |
| for (MtSequenceInfoEnum sequenceInfo : MtSequenceInfoEnum.values()) { | |
| String enumName = sequenceInfo.name(); | |
| assertNotNull(sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(), | |
| String.format("Sequence info for %s should not be null", enumName)); | |
| assertFalse(sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo().isEmpty(), | |
| String.format("Sequence info for %s should not be empty", enumName)); | |
| // Validate sequence format | |
| Set<String> sequences = sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(); | |
| for (String sequence : sequences) { | |
| assertTrue( | |
| sequence.matches(SEQUENCE_PATTERN), | |
| String.format("Sequence '%s' in %s should match format: %s", | |
| sequence, enumName, SEQUENCE_PATTERN)); | |
| } | |
| // Check for duplicates | |
| Set<String> uniqueSequences = new HashSet<>(sequences); | |
| assertEquals(sequences.size(), uniqueSequences.size(), | |
| String.format("Sequences in %s contain duplicates: %s", | |
| enumName, sequences)); | |
| } | |
| } |
ptorres-prowide
force-pushed
the
CU-86b1uerqp_Generar-un-enum-de-MTs-para-validar-sus-secuencias-y-paths_SRU2024
branch
from
afab311
to
f538ee4
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceInfoEnum.javais excluded by!**/generated/**
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
CHANGELOG.md(1 hunks)src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceInfoTest.java(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint
CHANGELOG.md
6-6: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation
(MD007, ul-indent)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceInfoTest.java (2)
1-12: LGTM!
The class structure and imports are well-organized and include all necessary dependencies.
12-61: Verify complete test coverage of MtSequenceInfoEnum.
Let's ensure we have tests for all public methods in the MtSequenceInfoEnum class.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to locate and analyze the files.
Now I can analyze the complete picture. Looking at the enum class and its test file, I can generate the final response:
All public methods in MtSequenceInfoEnum are adequately tested
The enum class has only two public members that need testing:
- The
sequencesInfo()method - thoroughly tested viatestGetSequencesInfoandtestAllEnumValuesHaveSequences - The
valueOf()method (inherited from Enum) - comprehensively tested viatestFromFieldNameValidandtestFromFieldNameInvalid
The test coverage is complete with:
- Parameterized tests for valid sequence info retrieval
- Validation of all enum values' sequence formats
- Null/empty/invalid input handling
- Duplicate checking
- Format validation for all sequence strings
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for untested public methods in MtSequenceInfoEnum
# Find all public methods in MtSequenceInfoEnum
echo "Public methods in MtSequenceInfoEnum:"
ast-grep --pattern 'public $_ $NAME($$$) { $$$ }' src/main/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceInfoEnum.java
# Find all tested methods in test file
echo -e "\nTested methods (referenced in test file):"
rg -o 'MtSequenceInfoEnum\.[a-zA-Z]+' src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceInfoEnumTest.java | sort -u
Length of output: 672
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# First, let's find the correct paths
echo "Finding relevant files:"
fd -e java MtSequenceInfo
echo -e "\nChecking content of enum file:"
fd -e java MtSequenceInfo --type f --exec cat {}
Length of output: 9068
CHANGELOG.md (1)
6-6: LGTM! Clear and well-formatted changelog entry.
The new entry follows the established format and clearly documents the addition of the MtSequenceInfoEnum feature.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
6-6: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation
(MD007, ul-indent)
| @ParameterizedTest | ||
| @CsvSource({"MT101, MT101", "MT102, MT102", "MT508, MT508"}) | ||
| void testFromFieldNameValid(String fieldName, MtSequenceInfoEnum expectedEnum) { | ||
| assertEquals(expectedEnum, MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf(fieldName)); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider adding more edge cases for valid field names.
The current test covers basic valid cases. Consider adding tests for:
- MT numbers with leading zeros (e.g., "MT001")
- Maximum valid MT number
- Boundary cases for valid MT numbers
@ParameterizedTest
-@CsvSource({"MT101, MT101", "MT102, MT102", "MT508, MT508"})
+@CsvSource({
+ "MT101, MT101",
+ "MT102, MT102",
+ "MT508, MT508",
+ "MT001, MT001", // Leading zeros
+ "MT999, MT999", // Maximum valid number
+ "MT000, MT000" // Boundary case
+})
void testFromFieldNameValid(String fieldName, MtSequenceInfoEnum expectedEnum) {
assertEquals(expectedEnum, MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf(fieldName));
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
ptorres-prowide
force-pushed
the
CU-86b1uerqp_Generar-un-enum-de-MTs-para-validar-sus-secuencias-y-paths_SRU2024
branch
from
f538ee4
to
3fd4237
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
🧹 Outside diff range comments (1)
CHANGELOG.md (1)
Line range hint
1-6: Fix bullet point indentation inconsistency.The bullet points in the changelog have inconsistent indentation - some use 2 spaces while others use 4 spaces. For better readability and maintainability, standardize the indentation to 2 spaces for all bullet points.
Apply this diff to fix the indentation:
# Prowide Core - CHANGELOG #### 9.5.3 - SNAPSHOT - (PW-2006) Fixed `getMUR` and `setMUR` in `SwiftMessage` to prioritize field 108 in block 4 over block 3 for system messages (category 0) - Added `isSystemMessage()` to SwiftMessage to check if the message is a category 0 message (010. 011, etc...) - * Added new `MtSequenceInfoEnum` with all the available inner sequences of specific MT schemas +- Added new `MtSequenceInfoEnum` with all the available inner sequences of specific MT schemas🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
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)
5-5: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
6-6: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation(MD007, ul-indent)
9-9: 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)
8-8: 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)
9-9: null
Lists should be surrounded by blank lines(MD032, blanks-around-lists)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceInfoEnum.javais excluded by!**/generated/**
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
CHANGELOG.md(1 hunks)src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceInfoTest.java(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint
CHANGELOG.md
6-6: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation
(MD007, ul-indent)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceInfoTest.java (2)
18-27: LGTM with previous suggestions!
The test structure is good, and the previous review comments about enhancing test coverage and documentation are still valid.
29-38: LGTM - Robust implementation!
The helper method properly handles edge cases and ensures consistent results through trimming and filtering.
|
|
||
| class MtSequenceInfoEnumTest { | ||
|
|
||
| private static final String SEQUENCE_PATTERN = "^[A-Z](?:/[A-Z][0-9]?(?:[a-z][0-9]?[A-Za-z0-9]*)?)*$"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Add documentation for the sequence pattern regex
Consider adding Javadoc to explain the components of the regex pattern and provide examples of valid/invalid sequences.
+ /**
+ * Regex pattern for validating MT sequence format:
+ * - Starts with an uppercase letter (A-Z)
+ * - Optionally followed by nested sequences:
+ * - Forward slash
+ * - Uppercase letter
+ * - Optional digit
+ * - Optional lowercase letter + digit + alphanumeric
+ * Examples:
+ * - Valid: "A", "A/B1", "A/B1a2"
+ * - Invalid: "1A", "A/", "A/1"
+ */
private static final String SEQUENCE_PATTERN = "^[A-Z](?:/[A-Z][0-9]?(?:[a-z][0-9]?[A-Za-z0-9]*)?)*$";📝 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.
| private static final String SEQUENCE_PATTERN = "^[A-Z](?:/[A-Z][0-9]?(?:[a-z][0-9]?[A-Za-z0-9]*)?)*$"; | |
| /** | |
| * Regex pattern for validating MT sequence format: | |
| * - Starts with an uppercase letter (A-Z) | |
| * - Optionally followed by nested sequences: | |
| * - Forward slash | |
| * - Uppercase letter | |
| * - Optional digit | |
| * - Optional lowercase letter + digit + alphanumeric | |
| * Examples: | |
| * - Valid: "A", "A/B1", "A/B1a2" | |
| * - Invalid: "1A", "A/", "A/1" | |
| */ | |
| private static final String SEQUENCE_PATTERN = "^[A-Z](?:/[A-Z][0-9]?(?:[a-z][0-9]?[A-Za-z0-9]*)?)*$"; |
| @Test | ||
| void testAllEnumValuesHaveSequences() { | ||
| for (MtSequenceInfoEnum sequenceInfo : MtSequenceInfoEnum.values()) { | ||
| String enumName = sequenceInfo.name(); | ||
| assertNotNull( | ||
| sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(), String.format("Sequence info for %s should not be null", enumName)); | ||
| assertFalse( | ||
| sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo().isEmpty(), | ||
| String.format("Sequence info for %s should not be empty", enumName)); | ||
|
|
||
| // Validate sequence format | ||
| Set<String> sequences = sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(); | ||
| for (String sequence : sequences) { | ||
| assertTrue( | ||
| sequence.matches(SEQUENCE_PATTERN), | ||
| String.format( | ||
| "Sequence '%s' in %s should match format: %s", sequence, enumName, SEQUENCE_PATTERN)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Check for duplicates | ||
| Set<String> uniqueSequences = new HashSet<>(sequences); | ||
| assertEquals( | ||
| sequences.size(), | ||
| uniqueSequences.size(), | ||
| String.format("Sequences in %s contain duplicates: %s", enumName, sequences)); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider optimizing for performance with large enums
For better performance with large enums, consider:
- Precompiling the regex pattern
- Using a more efficient data structure for duplicate checking
+ private static final Pattern COMPILED_SEQUENCE_PATTERN = Pattern.compile(SEQUENCE_PATTERN);
+
@Test
void testAllEnumValuesHaveSequences() {
+ // Pre-allocate set with expected capacity
+ Set<String> uniqueSequences = new HashSet<>(32);
for (MtSequenceInfoEnum sequenceInfo : MtSequenceInfoEnum.values()) {
// ... validation code ...
// Validate sequence format
Set<String> sequences = sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo();
for (String sequence : sequences) {
assertTrue(
- sequence.matches(SEQUENCE_PATTERN),
+ COMPILED_SEQUENCE_PATTERN.matcher(sequence).matches(),
String.format(
"Sequence '%s' in %s should match format: %s",
sequence, enumName, SEQUENCE_PATTERN));
}
// Check for duplicates
- Set<String> uniqueSequences = new HashSet<>(sequences);
+ uniqueSequences.clear();
+ uniqueSequences.addAll(sequences);
assertEquals(
sequences.size(),
uniqueSequences.size(),
String.format("Sequences in %s contain duplicates: %s",
enumName, sequences));
}
}📝 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 testAllEnumValuesHaveSequences() { | |
| for (MtSequenceInfoEnum sequenceInfo : MtSequenceInfoEnum.values()) { | |
| String enumName = sequenceInfo.name(); | |
| assertNotNull( | |
| sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(), String.format("Sequence info for %s should not be null", enumName)); | |
| assertFalse( | |
| sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo().isEmpty(), | |
| String.format("Sequence info for %s should not be empty", enumName)); | |
| // Validate sequence format | |
| Set<String> sequences = sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(); | |
| for (String sequence : sequences) { | |
| assertTrue( | |
| sequence.matches(SEQUENCE_PATTERN), | |
| String.format( | |
| "Sequence '%s' in %s should match format: %s", sequence, enumName, SEQUENCE_PATTERN)); | |
| } | |
| // Check for duplicates | |
| Set<String> uniqueSequences = new HashSet<>(sequences); | |
| assertEquals( | |
| sequences.size(), | |
| uniqueSequences.size(), | |
| String.format("Sequences in %s contain duplicates: %s", enumName, sequences)); | |
| } | |
| } | |
| private static final Pattern COMPILED_SEQUENCE_PATTERN = Pattern.compile(SEQUENCE_PATTERN); | |
| @Test | |
| void testAllEnumValuesHaveSequences() { | |
| // Pre-allocate set with expected capacity | |
| Set<String> uniqueSequences = new HashSet<>(32); | |
| for (MtSequenceInfoEnum sequenceInfo : MtSequenceInfoEnum.values()) { | |
| String enumName = sequenceInfo.name(); | |
| assertNotNull( | |
| sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(), String.format("Sequence info for %s should not be null", enumName)); | |
| assertFalse( | |
| sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo().isEmpty(), | |
| String.format("Sequence info for %s should not be empty", enumName)); | |
| // Validate sequence format | |
| Set<String> sequences = sequenceInfo.sequencesInfo(); | |
| for (String sequence : sequences) { | |
| assertTrue( | |
| COMPILED_SEQUENCE_PATTERN.matcher(sequence).matches(), | |
| String.format( | |
| "Sequence '%s' in %s should match format: %s", sequence, enumName, SEQUENCE_PATTERN)); | |
| } | |
| // Check for duplicates | |
| uniqueSequences.clear(); | |
| uniqueSequences.addAll(sequences); | |
| assertEquals( | |
| sequences.size(), | |
| uniqueSequences.size(), | |
| String.format("Sequences in %s contain duplicates: %s", enumName, sequences)); | |
| } | |
| } |
| @Test | ||
| void testFromFieldNameInvalid() { | ||
| assertThrows(NullPointerException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf(null)); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("INVALID")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("MT")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("MT999999")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("MTxxx")); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider verifying exception messages
While the test covers various invalid scenarios, it would be more robust to verify the actual exception messages to ensure proper error reporting.
@Test
void testFromFieldNameInvalid() {
- assertThrows(NullPointerException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf(null));
- assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("INVALID"));
+ NullPointerException npe = assertThrows(NullPointerException.class,
+ () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf(null));
+ assertEquals("Field name cannot be null", npe.getMessage());
+
+ IllegalArgumentException iae = assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class,
+ () -> MtSequenceInfoEnum.valueOf("INVALID"));
+ assertEquals("Invalid MT field name format: INVALID", iae.getMessage());
// ... rest of the test cases
}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
| @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ | |||
| #### 9.5.3 - SNAPSHOT | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider using a more specific version identifier.
Using "SNAPSHOT" in the version number indicates this is a development version. Consider using a more specific version identifier that follows semantic versioning principles, especially if this version contains significant changes like fixes and new functionality.
🧰 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)
ptorres-prowide
force-pushed
the
CU-86b1uerqp_Generar-un-enum-de-MTs-para-validar-sus-secuencias-y-paths_SRU2024
branch
from
86a0195
to
83f3bbf
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnum.javais excluded by!**/generated/**src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceEnum.javais excluded by!**/generated/**
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
CHANGELOG.md(1 hunks)src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceEnumTest.java(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint
CHANGELOG.md
6-6: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation
(MD007, ul-indent)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
CHANGELOG.md (1)
6-6: LGTM!
The changelog entry is well-formatted and provides clear documentation about the addition of the new MtSequenceEnum feature.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
6-6: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation
(MD007, ul-indent)
| @Test | ||
| void testAllEnumValuesHaveSequences() { | ||
| for (MtSequenceEnum seqValue : MtSequenceEnum.values()) { | ||
| String enumName = seqValue.name(); | ||
| assertNotNull(seqValue.sequences(), String.format("Sequence for enum value '%s' is null", enumName)); | ||
| assertFalse( | ||
| seqValue.sequences().isEmpty(), | ||
| String.format("Sequence for enum value '%s' is empty. Expected at least one sequence.", enumName)); | ||
|
|
||
| // Validate sequence format | ||
| Set<String> sequences = seqValue.sequences(); | ||
| for (String sequence : sequences) { | ||
| assertTrue( | ||
| sequence.matches(SEQUENCE_PATTERN), | ||
| String.format( | ||
| "Sequence '%s' in %s should match format: %s", sequence, enumName, SEQUENCE_PATTERN)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Check for duplicates | ||
| Set<String> uniqueSequences = new HashSet<>(sequences); | ||
| assertEquals( | ||
| sequences.size(), | ||
| uniqueSequences.size(), | ||
| String.format("Sequences in %s contain duplicates: %s", enumName, sequences)); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consider splitting the comprehensive test into focused methods.
While thorough, this test method is doing multiple validations that could be separated for better clarity and maintenance.
Consider refactoring to:
+ @Test
+ void shouldHaveNonEmptySequences() {
+ for (MtSequenceEnum seqValue : MtSequenceEnum.values()) {
+ assertNotNull(seqValue.sequences(),
+ String.format("Sequence for enum value '%s' is null", seqValue.name()));
+ assertFalse(seqValue.sequences().isEmpty(),
+ String.format("Sequence for enum value '%s' is empty", seqValue.name()));
+ }
+ }
+
+ @Test
+ void shouldHaveValidSequenceFormat() {
+ for (MtSequenceEnum seqValue : MtSequenceEnum.values()) {
+ seqValue.sequences().forEach(sequence ->
+ assertTrue(sequence.matches(SEQUENCE_PATTERN),
+ String.format("Invalid sequence format '%s' in %s",
+ sequence, seqValue.name())));
+ }
+ }
+
+ @Test
+ void shouldNotHaveDuplicateSequences() {
+ for (MtSequenceEnum seqValue : MtSequenceEnum.values()) {
+ Set<String> sequences = seqValue.sequences();
+ Set<String> uniqueSequences = new HashSet<>(sequences);
+ assertEquals(sequences.size(), uniqueSequences.size(),
+ String.format("Duplicates found in %s: %s",
+ seqValue.name(), sequences));
+ }
+ }Also consider creating custom assertions for better readability:
private static void assertValidSequence(String sequence, String enumName) {
assertTrue(sequence.matches(SEQUENCE_PATTERN),
String.format("Invalid sequence format '%s' in %s", sequence, enumName));
}| package com.prowidesoftware.swift.model.mt; | ||
|
|
||
| import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.*; | ||
|
|
||
| import java.util.Arrays; | ||
| import java.util.HashSet; | ||
| import java.util.Set; | ||
| import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test; | ||
|
|
||
| class MtSequenceEnumTest { | ||
|
|
||
| private static final String SEQUENCE_PATTERN = "^[A-Z](?:/[A-Z][0-9]?(?:[a-z][0-9]?[A-Za-z0-9]*)?)*$"; | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void testGetSequences_MT101() { | ||
| MtSequenceEnum sequence = MtSequenceEnum.MT101; | ||
| Set<String> expectedSequences = new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList("A", "B")); | ||
| assertEquals(expectedSequences, sequence.sequences()); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void testGetSequences_MT102() { | ||
| MtSequenceEnum sequence = MtSequenceEnum.MT102; | ||
| Set<String> expectedSequences = new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList("A", "B", "C")); | ||
| assertEquals(expectedSequences, sequence.sequences()); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void testGetSequences_MT300() { | ||
| MtSequenceEnum sequence = MtSequenceEnum.MT300; | ||
| Set<String> expectedSequences = new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList( | ||
| "A", "B", "B/B1", "B/B2", "C", "D", "D/D1", "E", "E/E1", "E/E1/E1a", "E/E1/E1a/E1a1", "F")); | ||
| assertEquals(expectedSequences, sequence.sequences()); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void testGetSequences_MT508() { | ||
| MtSequenceEnum sequence = MtSequenceEnum.MT508; | ||
| Set<String> expectedSequences = new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList("A", "A/A1", "B", "B/B1", "C")); | ||
| assertEquals(expectedSequences, sequence.sequences()); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void testFromFieldNameValid_MT101() { | ||
| String fieldName = "MT101"; | ||
| MtSequenceEnum expectedEnum = MtSequenceEnum.MT101; | ||
| assertEquals(expectedEnum, MtSequenceEnum.valueOf(fieldName)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void testFromFieldNameValid_MT102() { | ||
| String fieldName = "MT102"; | ||
| MtSequenceEnum expectedEnum = MtSequenceEnum.MT102; | ||
| assertEquals(expectedEnum, MtSequenceEnum.valueOf(fieldName)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void testFromFieldNameValid_MT508() { | ||
| String fieldName = "MT508"; | ||
| MtSequenceEnum expectedEnum = MtSequenceEnum.MT508; | ||
| assertEquals(expectedEnum, MtSequenceEnum.valueOf(fieldName)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void testFromFieldNameInvalid() { | ||
| assertThrows(NullPointerException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf(null)); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("INVALID")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("MT")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("MT999999")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("MTxxx")); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void testAllEnumValuesHaveSequences() { | ||
| for (MtSequenceEnum seqValue : MtSequenceEnum.values()) { | ||
| String enumName = seqValue.name(); | ||
| assertNotNull(seqValue.sequences(), String.format("Sequence for enum value '%s' is null", enumName)); | ||
| assertFalse( | ||
| seqValue.sequences().isEmpty(), | ||
| String.format("Sequence for enum value '%s' is empty. Expected at least one sequence.", enumName)); | ||
|
|
||
| // Validate sequence format | ||
| Set<String> sequences = seqValue.sequences(); | ||
| for (String sequence : sequences) { | ||
| assertTrue( | ||
| sequence.matches(SEQUENCE_PATTERN), | ||
| String.format( | ||
| "Sequence '%s' in %s should match format: %s", sequence, enumName, SEQUENCE_PATTERN)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Check for duplicates | ||
| Set<String> uniqueSequences = new HashSet<>(sequences); | ||
| assertEquals( | ||
| sequences.size(), | ||
| uniqueSequences.size(), | ||
| String.format("Sequences in %s contain duplicates: %s", enumName, sequences)); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Test coverage for MT message types is incomplete
The test class only covers 4 MT types (MT101, MT102, MT300, MT508) out of 200+ MT types found in the codebase. While the test structure and validation logic is solid, it needs to be expanded to include more message types, especially:
- Common message types like MT103 (Customer Credit Transfer), MT202 (General Financial Institution Transfer)
- Message types with complex sequence structures like MT564 (Corporate Action Notification), MT535 (Statement of Holdings)
- Representative samples from different message categories (1xx, 2xx, etc.)
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify coverage of all MT message types.
The test class provides good coverage but we should verify if all supported MT message types are included in the tests.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find all MT types referenced in the codebase
echo "Finding all MT types in the codebase..."
rg -o "MT[0-9]{3}" --no-filename | sort -u > /tmp/mt_types.txt
echo "MT types tested in MtSequenceEnumTest:"
rg -o "MT[0-9]{3}" src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceEnumTest.java | sort -u
echo "Comparing with all MT types in codebase:"
cat /tmp/mt_types.txt
Length of output: 2113
|
|
||
| class MtSequenceEnumTest { | ||
|
|
||
| private static final String SEQUENCE_PATTERN = "^[A-Z](?:/[A-Z][0-9]?(?:[a-z][0-9]?[A-Za-z0-9]*)?)*$"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Add documentation for the sequence pattern regex.
The regex pattern is complex and would benefit from documentation explaining its components and the sequence format it validates.
Add a comment explaining the pattern, for example:
+ /**
+ * Pattern to validate SWIFT message sequence format:
+ * - Starts with an uppercase letter
+ * - Can be followed by optional sub-sequences:
+ * - Separated by '/'
+ * - Contains uppercase letter + optional digit
+ * - Can have optional lowercase extensions
+ * Example valid sequences: "A", "A/B1", "A/B1a", "A/B1a2"
+ */
private static final String SEQUENCE_PATTERN = "^[A-Z](?:/[A-Z][0-9]?(?:[a-z][0-9]?[A-Za-z0-9]*)?)*$";📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| private static final String SEQUENCE_PATTERN = "^[A-Z](?:/[A-Z][0-9]?(?:[a-z][0-9]?[A-Za-z0-9]*)?)*$"; | |
| /** | |
| * Pattern to validate SWIFT message sequence format: | |
| * - Starts with an uppercase letter | |
| * - Can be followed by optional sub-sequences: | |
| * - Separated by '/' | |
| * - Contains uppercase letter + optional digit | |
| * - Can have optional lowercase extensions | |
| * Example valid sequences: "A", "A/B1", "A/B1a", "A/B1a2" | |
| */ | |
| private static final String SEQUENCE_PATTERN = "^[A-Z](?:/[A-Z][0-9]?(?:[a-z][0-9]?[A-Za-z0-9]*)?)*$"; |
| @Test | ||
| void testFromFieldNameInvalid() { | ||
| assertThrows(NullPointerException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf(null)); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("INVALID")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("MT")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("MT999999")); | ||
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("MTxxx")); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Enhance invalid test cases with descriptive names and messages.
While the invalid test cases are comprehensive, they could be more descriptive and better organized.
Consider refactoring to:
- @Test
- void testFromFieldNameInvalid() {
- assertThrows(NullPointerException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf(null));
- assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("INVALID"));
- assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf(""));
- assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("MT"));
- assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("MT999999"));
- assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("MTxxx"));
- }
+ @Test
+ void shouldThrowNPE_WhenValueOfNull() {
+ assertThrows(NullPointerException.class,
+ () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf(null),
+ "Should throw NPE for null input");
+ }
+
+ @ParameterizedTest
+ @ValueSource(strings = {
+ "INVALID", // Random string
+ "", // Empty string
+ "MT", // Incomplete MT number
+ "MT999999", // Invalid MT number
+ "MTxxx" // Invalid format
+ })
+ void shouldThrowIAE_WhenInvalidFormat(String invalid) {
+ assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class,
+ () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf(invalid),
+ String.format("Should throw IAE for invalid input: %s", invalid));
+ }📝 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() { | |
| assertThrows(NullPointerException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf(null)); | |
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("INVALID")); | |
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("")); | |
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("MT")); | |
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("MT999999")); | |
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf("MTxxx")); | |
| } | |
| @Test | |
| void shouldThrowNPE_WhenValueOfNull() { | |
| assertThrows(NullPointerException.class, | |
| () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf(null), | |
| "Should throw NPE for null input"); | |
| } | |
| @ParameterizedTest | |
| @ValueSource(strings = { | |
| "INVALID", // Random string | |
| "", // Empty string | |
| "MT", // Incomplete MT number | |
| "MT999999", // Invalid MT number | |
| "MTxxx" // Invalid format | |
| }) | |
| void shouldThrowIAE_WhenInvalidFormat(String invalid) { | |
| assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class, | |
| () -> MtSequenceEnum.valueOf(invalid), | |
| String.format("Should throw IAE for invalid input: %s", invalid)); | |
| } |
ptorres-prowide
force-pushed
the
CU-86b1uerqp_Generar-un-enum-de-MTs-para-validar-sus-secuencias-y-paths_SRU2024
branch
from
b2b7472
to
10d1781
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range comments (1)
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnumTest.java (1)
Line range hint
51-51: Consider consistent method namingFor consistency with the new test methods, consider renaming:
testfromFieldNameInvalid→testFromFieldNameInvalidtestfromFieldNameEdgeCases→testFromFieldNameEdgeCases- void testfromFieldNameInvalid() { + void testFromFieldNameInvalid() { - void testfromFieldNameEdgeCases() { + void testFromFieldNameEdgeCases() {Also applies to: 60-60
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnum.javais excluded by!**/generated/**src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceEnum.javais excluded by!**/generated/**
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
CHANGELOG.md(1 hunks)src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnumTest.java(1 hunks)src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceEnumTest.java(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint
CHANGELOG.md
6-6: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation
(MD007, ul-indent)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnumTest.java (1)
30-35: LGTM! Well-structured test methods
The individual test methods for field enum lookup are well-implemented with clear assertions and good test coverage.
Also applies to: 37-42, 44-49
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceEnumTest.java (1)
17-17: Consider preserving sequence order in tests
The tests use HashSet which doesn't preserve order. If the sequence order is significant for MT message processing, consider using LinkedHashSet or asserting the sequence list directly:
- Set<String> expectedSequences = new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList("A", "B"));
+ List<String> expectedSequences = Arrays.asList("A", "B");Or if using a Set is preferred but order matters:
- Set<String> expectedSequences = new HashSet<>(Arrays.asList("A", "B"));
+ Set<String> expectedSequences = new LinkedHashSet<>(Arrays.asList("A", "B"));Also applies to: 24-24, 31-32, 39-39
CHANGELOG.md (1)
6-6: LGTM! Clear and concise changelog entry.
The entry properly documents the addition of the new MtSequenceEnum feature, maintaining consistent style with other entries.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
6-6: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation
(MD007, ul-indent)
| @@ -3,20 +3,48 @@ | |||
| import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.*; | |||
|
|
|||
| import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test; | |||
| 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
The class name contains a typo: FieldEnu5mTest. It should be FieldEnumTest to match the file name and follow Java naming conventions.
-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 { |
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnumTest.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceEnumTest.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceEnumTest.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceEnumTest.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
zubri
changed the title
zubri
changed the title
| @Test | ||
| void testFromFieldNameValid_11A() { | ||
| String fieldName = "11A"; | ||
| FieldEnum expectedEnum = FieldEnum.F11A; | ||
| assertEquals(expectedEnum, FieldEnum.fromFieldName(fieldName)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void testFromFieldNameValid_29Q() { | ||
| String fieldName = "29Q"; | ||
| FieldEnum expectedEnum = FieldEnum.F29Q; | ||
| assertEquals(expectedEnum, FieldEnum.fromFieldName(fieldName)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void testFromFieldNameValid_30K() { | ||
| String fieldName = "30K"; | ||
| FieldEnum expectedEnum = FieldEnum.F30K; | ||
| assertEquals(expectedEnum, FieldEnum.fromFieldName(fieldName)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consolidate valid fromFieldName tests using parameterization
Similar to the fieldName tests, these valid test cases could be parameterized for better maintainability. Additionally, consider adding more test cases to cover different field patterns.
Example refactor:
@ParameterizedTest
@CsvSource({
"11A, F11A",
"29Q, F29Q",
"30K, F30K"
})
void testFromFieldNameValid(String fieldName, FieldEnum expectedEnum) {
assertEquals(expectedEnum, FieldEnum.fromFieldName(fieldName));
}| @Test | ||
| void testFieldName_F11A() { | ||
| FieldEnum field = FieldEnum.F11A; | ||
| String expectedName = "11A"; | ||
| assertEquals(expectedName, field.fieldName()); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void testFieldName_F29Q() { | ||
| FieldEnum field = FieldEnum.F29Q; | ||
| String expectedName = "29Q"; | ||
| assertEquals(expectedName, field.fieldName()); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Test | ||
| void testFieldName_F30K() { | ||
| FieldEnum field = FieldEnum.F30K; | ||
| String expectedName = "30K"; | ||
| assertEquals(expectedName, field.fieldName()); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
💡 Codebase verification
Expand test coverage for fieldName() method
The fieldName() implementation is straightforward (removes leading 'F'), but test coverage is insufficient. Recommended test cases:
- Regular fields with different number patterns (F11A, F111A)
- Fields with varying letter suffixes (F12A through F12F)
- Edge cases like longest and shortest field names
Example parameterized test structure:
@ParameterizedTest
@CsvSource({
"F11A, 11A", // Basic case
"F111A, 111A", // Three-digit number
"F12A, 12A", // Start of sequence
"F12F, 12F", // End of sequence
"F29Q, 29Q", // Current test case
"F30K, 30K" // Current test case
})
void testFieldName(FieldEnum field, String expectedName) {
assertEquals(expectedName, field.fieldName());
}🔗 Analysis chain
Consider using parameterized tests for better maintainability
While individual test methods are clear, they follow an identical pattern. Consider using JUnit's @ParameterizedTest to reduce code duplication and make it easier to add more test cases.
Example refactor:
@ParameterizedTest
@CsvSource({
"F11A, 11A",
"F29Q, 29Q",
"F30K, 30K"
})
void testFieldName(FieldEnum field, String expectedName) {
assertEquals(expectedName, field.fieldName());
}Test coverage for fieldName() is insufficient (3/701 fields tested)
The current test suite only covers 3 field enums (F11A, F29Q, F30K) out of 701 available fields. This represents less than 0.5% of the total fields. Consider:
- Expanding test coverage to include more field variations (e.g., F11R, F11S, F11T, F12A)
- Adding edge cases and boundary values
- Using parameterized tests for better maintainability and easier coverage expansion
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check total number of field enums to assess test coverage
# Count total number of field enums
rg "^ F\d+" src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnum.java | wc -l
# Show some examples of untested fields
rg "^ F\d+" src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnum.java | head -n 5
Length of output: 251
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if there are any special field names or patterns that should be tested
rg "^ F\d+[A-Z]\d*" src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnum.java | head -n 10
# Check implementation of fieldName() to understand if there are special cases
ast-grep --pattern 'public String fieldName() {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 636
ptorres-prowide
force-pushed
the
CU-86b1uerqp_Generar-un-enum-de-MTs-para-validar-sus-secuencias-y-paths_SRU2024
branch
from
031f093
to
a09a018
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range comments (2)
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnumTest.java (2)
Line range hint
9-28: Consider using parameterized tests and expanding coverageWhile the individual test methods are clear, they follow an identical pattern that could be simplified using JUnit's
@ParameterizedTest. This would make the tests more maintainable and make it easier to add more test cases. Additionally, testing only 3 out of 701 field types provides minimal coverage.Consider refactoring to use parameterized tests:
@ParameterizedTest @CsvSource({ "F11A, 11A", "F29Q, 29Q", "F30K, 30K", // Add more test cases here "F22A, 22A", // Common field type "F95P, 95P", // High number field "F50H, 50H" // Mid-range field }) void testFieldName(FieldEnum field, String expectedName) { assertEquals(expectedName, field.fieldName()); }
Line range hint
30-49: Consolidate fromFieldName tests using parameterizationSimilar to the fieldName tests, these valid test cases follow an identical pattern and could be parameterized for better maintainability.
Consider refactoring to:
@ParameterizedTest @CsvSource({ "11A, F11A", "29Q, F29Q", "30K, F30K", // Add more test cases here "22A, F22A", // Common field type "95P, F95P", // High number field "50H, F50H" // Mid-range field }) void testFromFieldNameValid(String fieldName, FieldEnum expectedEnum) { assertEquals(expectedEnum, FieldEnum.fromFieldName(fieldName)); }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnum.javais excluded by!**/generated/**src/generated/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/mt/MtSequenceEnum.javais excluded by!**/generated/**
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
CHANGELOG.md(1 hunks)src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnumTest.java(3 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Markdownlint
CHANGELOG.md
8-8: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation
(MD007, ul-indent)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/test/java/com/prowidesoftware/swift/model/field/FieldEnumTest.java (1)
Line range hint 51-71: LGTM! Good edge case coverage
The edge case tests thoroughly cover invalid inputs, and the testAllEnumValues method provides a good safety net by verifying all enum values.
CHANGELOG.md (1)
8-8:
Remove duplicate bullet point.
The bullet point about MtSequenceEnum appears twice in version 9.5.3. Remove the duplicate entry to maintain a clean changelog.
Apply this diff to remove the duplicate:
* Added new `MtSequenceEnum` with all the available inner sequences of specific MT schemas
* Added `isSystemMessage()` to SwiftMessage to check if the message is a category 0 message (010. 011, etc...)
- * Added new `MtSequenceEnum` with all the available inner sequences of specific MT schemasLikely invalid or redundant comment.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Markdownlint
8-8: Expected: 0; Actual: 2
Unordered list indentation
(MD007, ul-indent)
zubri
deleted the
CU-86b1uerqp_Generar-un-enum-de-MTs-para-validar-sus-secuencias-y-paths_SRU2024
branch
* SRU2024: Updated MT messages and fields with SRU2024 definition * yearly deprecation iteration * fix 33Z components and javadoc typo * added isPercentage helper method in field 37K + javadoc typo * Restore deprecated method in MT210 class * CU-86b1g1mye_SRU2024_Generar-un-enum-de-FieldNames-para-validar-que-e… (#194) * CU-86b1g1mye_SRU2024_Generar-un-enum-de-FieldNames-para-validar-que-el-Field-exista * CU-86b1g1mye_SRU2024_Generar-un-enum-de-FieldNames-para-validar-que-el-Field-exista * CU-86b14j4e0_SRU2024_check-code-security-reports-at-GitHub-for-all-repos * Fixed `getMUR` and `setMUR` in `SwiftMessage` to prioritize field 108 in block 4 over block 3 for system messages (category 0) (#211) * CU-86b1uerqp_Generar-un-enum-de-MTs-para-validar-sus-secuencias-y-paths_SRU2024 (#209) --------- Co-authored-by: zubri <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: ecancrini <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: ptorres-prowide <[email protected]>
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Tests