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

Add all addons flag to partial backups #5490

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 16, 2024
Merged

Add all addons flag to partial backups #5490

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 16, 2024

Conversation

mdegat01
Copy link
Contributor

@mdegat01 mdegat01 commented Dec 16, 2024

Proposed change

Allow specifying ALL for addons when making a partial backup via the API. Supervisor will then collect the current list of addons and include them all. This is to facilitate scheduled backups where the user wants all addons included in every backup even though the list of addons may change over time.

Type of change

  • Dependency upgrade
  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (which adds functionality to the supervisor)
  • Breaking change (fix/feature causing existing functionality to break)
  • Code quality improvements to existing code or addition of tests

Additional information

Checklist

  • The code change is tested and works locally.
  • Local tests pass. Your PR cannot be merged unless tests pass
  • There is no commented out code in this PR.
  • I have followed the development checklist
  • The code has been formatted using Ruff (ruff format supervisor tests)
  • Tests have been added to verify that the new code works.

If API endpoints or add-on configuration are added/changed:

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Introduced a new option for specifying addons during partial backups, allowing the use of a flag for all addons.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Enhanced validation for addon specifications in backup operations.
  • Tests

    • Added new tests for the partial backup functionality with all addons.
    • Improved organization and clarity of existing test functions through type annotations and fixture usage.

@mdegat01 mdegat01 added the new-feature A new feature label Dec 16, 2024
@mdegat01 mdegat01 requested a review from agners December 16, 2024 16:27
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 16, 2024

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The changes introduce a new feature for partial backups in the Supervisor's backup system. A new constant ALL_ADDONS_FLAG is added to allow backing up all addons by specifying a special flag. The implementation modifies the backup schema validation to accept either this flag or a list of specific addon names. In the backup process, when the flag is used, it automatically converts to a list of all local addons, providing a more flexible backup option.

Changes

File Change Summary
supervisor/api/backups.py - Added ALL_ADDONS_FLAG constant
- Modified SCHEMA_BACKUP_PARTIAL schema to accept ALL flag or list of addons
- Updated backup_partial method to handle ALL flag by converting to full addon list
tests/api/test_backups.py - Added type annotations to test functions
- Applied @pytest.mark.usefixtures decorators
- Removed some redundant parameters
- Added new test test_partial_backup_all_addons

Sequence Diagram

sequenceDiagram
    participant Client
    participant BackupAPI
    participant AddonManager
    participant BackupSystem

    Client->>BackupAPI: Request partial backup with ALL flag
    BackupAPI->>AddonManager: Get list of local addons
    AddonManager-->>BackupAPI: Return all addon names
    BackupAPI->>BackupSystem: Initiate backup with addon list
    BackupSystem-->>BackupAPI: Create backup
    BackupAPI-->>Client: Return backup details
Loading

Tip

CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command @coderabbitai generate docstrings to have CodeRabbit automatically generate docstrings for your pull request.


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

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

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

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

Other keywords and placeholders

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

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

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

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
supervisor/api/backups.py (1)

359-361: Consider validating the list of local addons.

While the conversion from ALL_ADDONS_FLAG to a list of local addons is clean, consider adding validation to ensure the list is not empty and that all addons are in a valid state for backup.

 if body.get(ATTR_ADDONS) == ALL_ADDONS_FLAG:
-    body[ATTR_ADDONS] = list(self.sys_addons.local)
+    local_addons = list(self.sys_addons.local)
+    if not local_addons:
+        raise APIError("No local addons found to backup")
+    body[ATTR_ADDONS] = local_addons
tests/api/test_backups.py (1)

797-812: Consider adding more test cases.

The test covers the happy path well, but consider adding tests for:

  1. Empty addon list scenario
  2. Error handling when addons are in invalid states
  3. Validation of the response structure
@pytest.mark.parametrize(
    "addons_list,expected_status",
    [
        ([], 400),  # Empty addon list
        ([Addon(invalid_state=True)], 400),  # Invalid addon state
    ]
)
async def test_partial_backup_all_addons_error_cases(
    api_client: TestClient,
    coresys: CoreSys,
    addons_list: list[Addon],
    expected_status: int,
):
    """Test error cases for ALL addons backup."""
    coresys.core.state = CoreState.RUNNING
    coresys.hardware.disk.get_disk_free_space = lambda x: 5000
    
    with patch.object(CoreSys, "addons") as mock_addons:
        mock_addons.local = addons_list
        resp = await api_client.post(
            "/backups/new/partial",
            json={"name": "All addons test", "addons": "ALL"}
        )
        assert resp.status == expected_status
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5e6bef7 and a9b5384.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • supervisor/api/backups.py (3 hunks)
  • tests/api/test_backups.py (15 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
supervisor/api/backups.py (2)

64-65: LGTM! Well-defined constant.

The constant follows Python naming conventions and is self-descriptive.


113-115: LGTM! Schema validation looks good.

The schema modification correctly handles both the new flag and the original list format while maintaining validation.

@agners agners merged commit 90590ae into main Dec 16, 2024
21 checks passed
@agners agners deleted the backup-all-addons-flag branch December 16, 2024 17:26
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Dec 19, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants