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

Draft: Initial Proposal for redesign of coverage processor #230

Open
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

coderustic
Copy link
Contributor

@coderustic coderustic commented Nov 20, 2024

User description

  • Expose a unified interface for different formats
    ** CoverageData & CoverageReport
  • Class hierarchy of coverage processors that are initialized
    via a factory
  • CoverageProcessors are abstracted from feature flag
  • Filtering of report based on feature flag set

PR Type

enhancement, tests


Description

  • Introduced a new class hierarchy for processing coverage reports, including CoverageData and CoverageReport data classes.
  • Implemented specific processors for Cobertura, Lcov, and Jacoco coverage formats.
  • Added a factory class to create appropriate coverage processors based on the tool type.
  • Developed tests for the new coverage processor classes, ensuring correct functionality and coverage.
  • Made minor formatting adjustments in existing files.

Changes walkthrough 📝

Relevant files
Enhancement
processor.py
Implement coverage processing with a new class hierarchy 

cover_agent/coverage/processor.py

  • Introduced a new class hierarchy for coverage processing.
  • Added CoverageData and CoverageReport data classes.
  • Implemented multiple coverage processors for different formats
    (Cobertura, Lcov, Jacoco).
  • Added a factory class for creating coverage processors.
  • +300/-0 
    Tests
    test_processor.py
    Add tests for coverage processor classes                                 

    tests/coverage/test_processor.py

  • Added tests for CoverageProcessorFactory and CoverageProcessor.
  • Included tests for different coverage processors (Cobertura, Jacoco,
    Lcov).
  • Used pytest fixtures and mock for testing.
  • +97/-0   
    Formatting
    CoverageProcessor.py
    Minor formatting adjustment                                                           

    cover_agent/CoverageProcessor.py

    • Minor formatting change to ensure no newline at end of file.
    +1/-1     
    test_CoverageProcessor.py
    Remove unnecessary newline                                                             

    tests/test_CoverageProcessor.py

    • Removed an unnecessary newline at the end of the file.
    +0/-1     

    💡 PR-Agent usage: Comment /help "your question" on any pull request to receive relevant information

    Copy link
    Contributor

    PR-Agent was enabled for this repository. To continue using it, please link your git user with your CodiumAI identity here.

    PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

    Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

    ⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 4 🔵🔵🔵🔵⚪
    🧪 PR contains tests
    🔒 No security concerns identified
    ⚡ Recommended focus areas for review

    Potential Bug
    The coverage percentage calculation in CoverageReportFilter.filter_report() may raise a ZeroDivisionError if all files are filtered out

    Type Error
    The JacocoProcessor.parse_coverage_report() method creates CoverageData with incorrect parameter name 'coverage_percentag' (missing 'e')

    Code Smell
    The JacocoProcessor._parse_jacoco_csv() method returns a tuple but its type hint indicates it returns a Dict[str, CoverageData]

    Documentation Issue
    Typo in CoverageData class docstring - 'nubmers' instead of 'numbers' in missed_lines description

    Copy link
    Contributor

    codiumai-pr-agent-pro bot commented Nov 20, 2024

    PR-Agent was enabled for this repository. To continue using it, please link your git user with your CodiumAI identity here.

    PR Code Suggestions ✨

    Explore these optional code suggestions:

    CategorySuggestion                                                                                                                                    Score
    Possible issue
    ✅ Fix incorrect parameter name and provide all required arguments for dataclass instantiation
    Suggestion Impact:The suggestion corrected the parameter name from 'coverage_percentag' to 'coverage_percentage' and added the required arguments 'covered_lines' and 'missed_lines' for the CoverageData instantiation.

    code diff:

    -        coverage[class_name] = CoverageData(covered=covered, missed=missed, coverage_percentag=coverage_percentage)
    +        coverage[class_name] = CoverageData(covered_lines=[], covered=covered, missed_lines=[], missed=missed, coverage=coverage_percentage)

    Fix the typo in the parameter name 'coverage_percentag' to 'coverage_percentage'
    when creating CoverageData in JacocoProcessor.parse_coverage_report()

    cover_agent/coverage/processor.py [167]

    -coverage[class_name] = CoverageData(covered=covered, missed=missed, coverage_percentag=coverage_percentage)
    +coverage[class_name] = CoverageData(covered_lines=[], covered=covered, missed_lines=[], missed=missed, coverage=coverage_percentage)
    • Apply this suggestion
    Suggestion importance[1-10]: 9

    Why: The suggestion fixes a critical bug where the code would fail at runtime due to incorrect parameter name and missing required arguments for the CoverageData dataclass, which is marked as frozen.

    9
    ✅ Add protection against division by zero when calculating coverage percentages
    Suggestion Impact:The suggestion was implemented by adding a check for division by zero when calculating total_coverage, using total_lines to ensure it is greater than zero before performing the division.

    code diff:

    -            total_coverage=(sum(cov.covered_lines for cov in filtered_coverage.values()) / 
    -                         sum(cov.covered_lines + cov.missed_lines for cov in filtered_coverage.values()))
    -                         if filtered_coverage else 0.0,
    +        total_lines = sum(len(cov.covered_lines) + len(cov.missed_lines) for cov in filtered_coverage.values())
    +        total_coverage = (sum(len(cov.covered_lines) for cov in filtered_coverage.values()) / total_lines) if total_lines > 0 else 0.0,

    Add error handling for division by zero when calculating total_coverage in
    CoverageReportFilter.filter_report()

    cover_agent/coverage/processor.py [244-246]

    -total_coverage=(sum(cov.covered_lines for cov in filtered_coverage.values()) / 
    -                     sum(cov.covered_lines + cov.missed_lines for cov in filtered_coverage.values()))
    -                     if filtered_coverage else 0.0,
    +total_lines = sum(len(cov.covered_lines) + len(cov.missed_lines) for cov in filtered_coverage.values())
    +total_coverage = (sum(len(cov.covered_lines) for cov in filtered_coverage.values()) / total_lines) if total_lines > 0 else 0.0,
    • Apply this suggestion
    Suggestion importance[1-10]: 8

    Why: The suggestion prevents potential runtime errors by adding proper handling for division by zero, and improves the calculation logic by using len() for list counts.

    8
    Prevent race condition by capturing file modification time before processing

    Fix potential race condition in process_coverage() by capturing file modification
    time before processing

    cover_agent/coverage/processor.py [293]

    -report = processor.process_coverage_report(time_of_test_command=int(os.path.getmtime(report_path) * 1000))
    +report_mtime = int(os.path.getmtime(report_path) * 1000)
    +report = processor.process_coverage_report(time_of_test_command=report_mtime)
    • Apply this suggestion
    Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7

    Why: The suggestion prevents a potential race condition where the file modification time could change between when it's checked and when it's used, improving code reliability.

    7

    💡 Need additional feedback ? start a PR chat

    @coderustic coderustic force-pushed the feature/improve-coverage-processor branch from 8491408 to a60c58e Compare November 24, 2024 15:17
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Projects
    None yet
    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

    1 participant