Skip to content

Conversation

@makrsmark
Copy link
Collaborator

@makrsmark makrsmark commented Feb 24, 2025

it wasn't hooked up anyway

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Refactor

    • Streamlined the internal decoding process for improved consistency and clarity.
  • Tests

    • Updated test scenarios to align with the revised decoding behavior, ensuring validated outputs and proper handling of message content.
  • Chores

    • Removed deprecated components to simplify the overall codebase and maintain a cleaner implementation.

@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 24, 2025

Walkthrough

This PR refactors the testing of a decoding plugin by renaming instances of Label_H1_PWI to Label_H1 in the test file. It updates instantiation and modifies assertions (e.g., changing the expected decodeLevel from 'full' to 'partial', and updating the expected plugin name) while adding a new assertion for the decoding result's remaining.text. Additionally, the obsolete implementation file Label_H1_PWI.ts has been removed.

Changes

File Summary of Changes
lib/plugins/Label_H1_PWI.test.ts Renamed plugin usage from Label_H1_PWI to Label_H1; updated instantiation and assertions (e.g., decodeLevel now 'partial', updated invalid decoder name, added assertion for remaining.text); removed tests for plugin qualifiers.
lib/plugins/Label_H1_PWI.ts Removed file containing the deprecated Label_H1_PWI implementation.

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

  • fredclausen
  • kevinelliott

Poem

Hoppin’ through code with a joyful beat,
I’ve refactored tests—oh, what a treat!
Old labels fade like dusk to night,
New names and checks bring coding light.
With keen rabbit eyes, our code marches on—hop to it!
🐇✨

✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings (Beta)

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 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 (1)
lib/plugins/Label_H1_PWI.test.ts (1)

4-4: Update test suite description to reflect generic decoder.

The test suite description still mentions "PWI" which doesn't align with the move to a generic H1 decoder.

-describe('Label H1 PWI', () => {
+describe('Label H1', () => {
📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6c20459 and 56280e2.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • lib/plugins/Label_H1_PWI.test.ts (3 hunks)
  • lib/plugins/Label_H1_PWI.ts (0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
  • lib/plugins/Label_H1_PWI.ts
🔇 Additional comments (5)
lib/plugins/Label_H1_PWI.test.ts (5)

5-5: LGTM!

The plugin type has been correctly updated to use the generic Label_H1 type.


9-9: LGTM!

The plugin instantiation has been correctly updated to use the generic Label_H1 class.


40-40: LGTM!

The decoder name has been correctly updated to reflect the generic nature of the H1 decoder.


18-18:

Details

✅ Verification successful

Verify the intended partial decoding behavior.

The test now expects:

  1. A 'partial' decode level instead of 'full'
  2. Remaining text containing structured data (DD/CB segments)

Please confirm if this is the intended behavior:

  • Should the DD/CB segments be decoded as well?
  • If not, should we document why these segments are left for other decoders?

Also applies to: 30-30


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if there are other decoders for DD/CB segments

# Search for decoders handling DD/CB segments
rg -l "DD|CB" ./lib/plugins/

Length of output: 376


Confirm Partial Decoding Behavior for DD/CB Segments

It appears that the change in expected decode level to "partial" in lib/plugins/Label_H1_PWI.test.ts is intentional. The search results show that several other plugins in the directory (e.g., Label_H1_FPN.ts, Label_H1_OHMA.test.ts, Label_H1_PRG.test.ts, etc.) reference DD/CB segments, suggesting that these segments are handled separately by dedicated decoders.

  • Test Update: The assertion on line 18 now expects a decode level of 'partial', which aligns with the updated decoder behavior.
  • Remaining Text: The structured DD/CB segments seem to be designed for processing by other decoders. If they are not to be decoded by this particular plugin, it may be helpful to add a code comment or documentation note clarifying this design decision.

Please confirm if:

  • The DD/CB segments should indeed remain unprocessed in this context.
  • A documentation comment is needed to explain why these segments are reserved for other decoders.

2-2:

Details

✅ Verification successful

Verify the import path for Label_H1.

The import statement has been updated to use the generic Label_H1 decoder. Let's verify that the file exists and contains the expected class.


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the existence and content of Label_H1.ts

# Check if the file exists and contains the Label_H1 class
ast-grep --pattern 'export class Label_H1' ./lib/plugins/Label_H1.ts

Length of output: 70


Further Verify the Label_H1 Definition

The initial check for the Label_H1 export did not return any output, which is inconclusive. Please run the following script to manually verify that the file lib/plugins/Label_H1.ts exists and contains the expected Label_H1 class declaration. This will help us confirm that the updated import in Label_H1_PWI.test.ts references a valid and correctly implemented file.


🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Verify if the file exists and inspect its initial content for the Label_H1 class.
if [ -f lib/plugins/Label_H1.ts ]; then
    echo "Found file: lib/plugins/Label_H1.ts"
    echo "Displaying the first 30 lines for verification:"
    head -n 30 lib/plugins/Label_H1.ts
else
    echo "File not found: lib/plugins/Label_H1.ts"
fi

Length of output: 1408


Import Path Verified for Label_H1

The file lib/plugins/Label_H1.ts exists and its content confirms that the expected Label_H1 class is properly defined and exported. The updated import statement in lib/plugins/Label_H1_PWI.test.ts correctly references this class.

  • Verified that lib/plugins/Label_H1.ts contains the export for the Label_H1 class.
  • The refactoring to use a generic H1 decoder is correctly implemented.

@makrsmark makrsmark merged commit 900b335 into airframesio:master Mar 8, 2025
4 checks passed
@makrsmark makrsmark deleted the feature/label-h1-pwi-consolidate branch March 8, 2025 13:25
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