add-assertions #227
add-assertions #227
Conversation
📝 Walkthrough📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes introduce a new 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.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/client.ts (1)
159-164: LGTM! Consider adding JSDoc comments.The new assertions array structure is well-designed with proper typing and flexibility. The optional metadata field allows for future extensibility.
Consider adding JSDoc comments to document the purpose and expected format of each field, especially the
criterionstring format and potential metadata usage:assertions: { /** Indicates if the assertion passed evaluation */ passed: boolean; /** Indicates if this assertion must pass for the overall evaluation to pass */ required: boolean; /** The assertion rule or condition being evaluated */ criterion: string; /** Additional context or data related to the assertion evaluation */ metadata?: Record<string, unknown>; }[];test/client.spec.ts (1)
285-292: LGTM! Consider adding more test cases for assertions.The test correctly validates the new assertions structure. However, consider adding test cases for:
- Multiple assertions in the array
- Different combinations of passed/required values
- Non-undefined metadata values
Example addition:
assertions: [ { passed: true, required: true, criterion: 'First criterion', metadata: { detail: 'test detail' } }, { passed: false, required: false, criterion: 'Second criterion', metadata: { reason: 'test failed' } } ]Also applies to: 316-323
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- src/client.ts (1 hunks)
- test/client.spec.ts (4 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (2)
src/client.ts (1)
159-164: Verify API endpoint compatibility with new assertions field.The new assertions field in TestResult interface affects both local and CI test results. Let's ensure the API endpoints are ready for this change.
✅ Verification successful
Let me try a different approach to verify the API endpoint compatibility by searching for the test result interfaces and their usage.
Let me search specifically for the evaluations field structure to understand if this is a breaking change.
Based on the search results, I can now provide a final response as we have sufficient evidence about the assertions field and its usage in the codebase.
The assertions field is already supported by the API endpoints
The search results show that:
- The assertions field is already part of the test mocks and is being used in the test cases (test/client.spec.ts)
- The API endpoints are already handling assertions as part of evaluations, as seen in the test responses
- There's a dedicated BaseAssertions evaluator class that supports this structure
- The field structure matches exactly with the interface changes being made
The change is compatible with existing API endpoints and is actually formalizing a structure that's already in use throughout the codebase.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if the API endpoints are already returning the assertions field # or if this is a breaking change that requires API updates. # Test: Search for any existing assertions field usage in tests echo "Checking test files for assertions field usage..." rg -l "assertions.*passed.*required.*criterion" --type ts # Test: Search for API response mocks or fixtures echo "Checking for API response mocks..." fd -e json -e ts --exec rg -l "threshold.*assertions"Length of output: 303
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for TestResult interface and its usage echo "Searching for TestResult interface definition and usage..." rg -A 10 "interface.*TestResult" --type ts # Search for getLocalTestResult and getCITestResult implementations echo "Searching for test result methods..." rg -A 10 "(getLocalTestResult|getCITestResult)" --type ts # Search for any API response handling related to test results echo "Searching for API response handling..." rg -B 5 -A 10 "(response.*test.*result|test.*result.*response)" --type-add 'test:*.{test,spec}.{ts,js}' --type testLength of output: 7629
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for evaluations field structure in test mocks and responses echo "Searching for evaluations field structure in tests..." rg -B 2 -A 10 "evaluations.*:.*\[" --type ts # Search for any existing assertions-like structures echo "Searching for similar assertion structures..." rg -B 2 -A 5 "(assertions|criteria|evaluation.*result)" --type tsLength of output: 26052
test/client.spec.ts (1)
364-364: LGTM! Good coverage of empty assertions case.The test appropriately handles the edge case of an empty assertions array, ensuring the property exists even when no assertions are present.
Also applies to: 388-388
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
assertionsproperty in theTestResultinterface for enhanced evaluation details.Bug Fixes
assertionsfield in API responses.