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 Out to WaitBuilder #1

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add Out to WaitBuilder #1

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

RussellLuo
Copy link
Owner

@RussellLuo RussellLuo commented Jun 11, 2024

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features
    • Introduced a new method to set task outputs using a flexible map input. This enhances the task configuration capabilities for end-users.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jun 11, 2024

Walkthrough

The recent changes introduce a new method Output to the WaitBuilder struct in the builtin/wait.go file. This method allows users to set the output of a task by accepting a map of strings to any type. This enhancement provides a more flexible and efficient way to manage task outputs within the WaitBuilder framework.

Changes

File Change Summary
builtin/wait.go Added the method Output to the WaitBuilder struct, enabling setting task outputs via a map.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant WaitBuilder
    participant Task

    User->>WaitBuilder: call Output(output map[string]any)
    WaitBuilder->>Task: set output with provided map
    Task-->>WaitBuilder: output set confirmation
    WaitBuilder-->>User: return WaitBuilder instance
Loading

Poem

In the code where tasks align,
A new method starts to shine.
Output sets the map with care,
Making tasks a breeze to share.
WaitBuilder's magic grows anew,
With every map it helps you through.
🌟🐇✨


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>.
    • 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 generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @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 as 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 resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration 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

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 81cdc48 and 81eb2f3.

Files selected for processing (1)
  • builtin/wait.go (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (1)
builtin/wait.go (1)

91-94: The Out method correctly sets the output map to the Wait task's Input.Output. Ensure that the Expr type is properly handled elsewhere in the code.

Verification successful

The Expr type is defined and used extensively throughout the codebase, including in the builtin/wait.go file. The WaitBuilder struct and its methods, including Out, are correctly implemented to handle the Expr type.

  • The Expr type is defined in decoder.go and is used in various files such as builtin/wait.go, builtin/terminate.go, builtin/http.go, and others.
  • The Out method in WaitBuilder sets the Output field to an Expr type, which is consistent with other usages in the codebase.

This confirms that the Expr type is properly handled in the Out method and throughout the codebase.

Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the `Expr` type is properly handled in all usages of `WaitBuilder.Out`.

# Test: Search for the usage of `WaitBuilder.Out` and check the handling of `Expr` type.
rg --type go $'WaitBuilder.Out'

Length of output: 30



Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find the definition of the `WaitBuilder` struct and its methods.

# Search for the definition of `WaitBuilder`.
ast-grep --lang go --pattern $'type WaitBuilder struct {
  $$$
}'

# Search for methods of `WaitBuilder`.
ast-grep --lang go --pattern $'func (b *WaitBuilder) $_($$$_) $_ {
  $$$
}'

# Search for the definition and usage of the `Expr` type.
rg --type go 'type Expr'
rg --type go 'Expr'

Length of output: 5573

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: 1

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 81eb2f3 and fdf4e75.

Files selected for processing (1)
  • builtin/wait.go (1 hunks)
Additional context used
golangci-lint
GitHub Check: Unit Testing (ubuntu-latest)
builtin/wait.go

[failure] 93-93:
undefined: c

GitHub Check: Lint
builtin/wait.go

[failure] 93-93:
undefined: c) (typecheck)

GitHub Check: Unit Testing (macOS-latest)
builtin/wait.go

[failure] 93-93:
undefined: c

Additional comments not posted (1)
builtin/wait.go (1)

91-94: The implementation of the Out method correctly sets the output for the Wait task.

Tools
GitHub Check: Unit Testing (ubuntu-latest)

[failure] 93-93:
undefined: c

GitHub Check: Lint

[failure] 93-93:
undefined: c) (typecheck)

GitHub Check: Unit Testing (macOS-latest)

[failure] 93-93:
undefined: c

builtin/wait.go Outdated
Comment on lines 91 to 94
func (b *WaitBuilder) Out(out map[string]any) *WaitBuilder {
b.task.Input.Output = orchestrator.Expr[map[string]any]{Expr: out}
return c
}
Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot Jun 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Fix the typo in the return statement of the Out method.

There is a typo on line 93 where c is used instead of b. This causes an undefined variable error as reported by the static analysis tools.

- return c
+ return b
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.

Suggested change
func (b *WaitBuilder) Out(out map[string]any) *WaitBuilder {
b.task.Input.Output = orchestrator.Expr[map[string]any]{Expr: out}
return c
}
func (b *WaitBuilder) Out(out map[string]any) *WaitBuilder {
b.task.Input.Output = orchestrator.Expr[map[string]any]{Expr: out}
return b
}
Tools
GitHub Check: Unit Testing (ubuntu-latest)

[failure] 93-93:
undefined: c

GitHub Check: Lint

[failure] 93-93:
undefined: c) (typecheck)

GitHub Check: Unit Testing (macOS-latest)

[failure] 93-93:
undefined: c

Copy link
Owner Author

@RussellLuo RussellLuo Aug 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@coderabbitai Is there any other issue?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@RussellLuo Based on the analysis, there are no additional issues found in the builtin/wait.go file. The functions are correctly defined, and there are no TODO or FIXME comments indicating pending issues. The only issue was the typo in the return statement of the Out method, which has been addressed.

Analysis chain
Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Check for syntax errors and common issues in the builtin/wait.go file.
ast-grep --lang go --pattern $'func $_($_) $_ {
  $$$
}' builtin/wait.go

# Check for any TODO or FIXME comments in the builtin/wait.go file.
rg 'TODO|FIXME' builtin/wait.go

Length of output: 451

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

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between fdf4e75 and 62a45a2.

Files selected for processing (1)
  • builtin/wait.go (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • builtin/wait.go

b.task.Input.Output = orchestrator.Expr[map[string]any]{Expr: output}
return b
}

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@RussellLuo, here's the unit testing code for the builtin/wait.go file, focusing on the WaitBuilder and Wait structs:

package builtin_test

import (
	"context"
	"testing"
	"github.com/stretchr/testify/assert"
	"github.com/RussellLuo/orchestrator/builtin"
	"github.com/RussellLuo/orchestrator"
)

func TestWaitBuilder_Output(t *testing.T) {
	builder := builtin.NewWait("testWait")
	outputMap := map[string]any{"key": "value"}
	resultBuilder := builder.Output(outputMap)

	assert.Equal(t, outputMap, resultBuilder.Task.Input.Output.Expr, "Output should set the output map correctly")
}

func TestWaitBuilder_Build(t *testing.T) {
	builder := builtin.NewWait("testWait")
	resultTask := builder.Build()

	assert.IsType(t, &builtin.Wait{}, resultTask, "Build should return a Wait task")
	assert.Equal(t, "testWait", resultTask.Name, "Task name should be set correctly")
}

func TestWait_Execute(t *testing.T) {
	ctx := context.Background()
	input := orchestrator.Input{}
	task := &builtin.Wait{
		TaskHeader: orchestrator.TaskHeader{Name: "testWait", Type: "wait"},
	}

	// Mock behavior
	behavior := &mockActorBehavior{}
	input.Set("actor", map[string]any{"behavior": behavior})

	output, err := task.Execute(ctx, input)

	assert.Nil(t, err, "Should handle nil input without error")
	assert.NotNil(t, output, "Should return an output")
}

// Mock ActorBehavior for testing
type mockActorBehavior struct {
	orchestrator.ActorBehavior
}

func (m *mockActorBehavior) Send(data map[string]any, err error) {
	// Mock sending data
}

func (m *mockActorBehavior) Receive() map[string]any {
	// Mock receiving data
	return map[string]any{"key": "value"}
}

This includes basic tests for the Output and Build methods of WaitBuilder, and a more complex test for the Execute method of Wait, which involves mocking the ActorBehavior. You might need to adjust the mock implementations based on the actual behavior and interfaces in your application.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant