Create link tests

[rishikunnath2747]

Integration tests for Create Links

• Automation test cases

Checklist before requesting a review

• I follow [Java Development Guidelines for SAP]
• I have ran integration tests on my cloud environment.

Upload Screenshots/lists of the scenarios tested

• I have Uploaded Screenshots or added lists of the scenarios tested in description

1. Single tenant - named user

2. Single tenant - technical user

3. MT- Tenant1 - technical user

4. MT- Tenant1 - named user

5. Single tenant - named user

6. Single tenant - technical user

[github-actions]

Gemini Automated Review
Summary of Changes

This commit introduces new createLink and openAttachment methods in Api, ApiInterface, and ApiMT classes. The deleteEntityDraft method's return value is updated. Unnecessary logging is removed from ApiMT's renameAttachment method. Extensive new tests covering link creation, deletion, and renaming are added to IntegrationTest_MultipleFacet and IntegrationTest_SingleFacet.

Best Practices Review

• Inconsistent Error Handling: While createLink and openAttachment properly handle and re-throw IOExceptions, other methods swallow exceptions, losing valuable debugging information.
• Inconsistent URL Construction: createLink and openAttachment URLs differ between Api and ApiMT classes.
• Redundant Logging: The removal of unnecessary logging in ApiMT's renameAttachment is a positive change.
• Fragile Integration Tests: Integration tests are tightly coupled to specific API responses, making them fragile to API changes. Tests in IntegrationTest_MultipleFacet and IntegrationTest_SingleFacet may not be logically organized and may depend on each other's order of execution.
• String Comparison in Tests: Integration tests rely on string matching for API responses, increasing fragility.
• Implicit Assumptions in Tests: Tests implicitly assume the uniqueness of entity IDs returned by createEntityDraft.
• Missing JSON Parsing Library: The code manually parses JSON responses, which is error-prone and less efficient than using a dedicated library.
• Potentially Problematic Test Ordering: The use of @Order annotation in integration tests may lead to dependencies between test cases, making them harder to run independently and in parallel.

Potential Bugs

• Insufficient Error Handling: Many methods only print errors to the console instead of properly handling or re-throwing exceptions. This significantly hinders debugging.
• Inconsistent URL Construction Leading to Unexpected Behavior: The discrepancies in URL construction between Api and ApiMT may cause unpredictable results.
• Fragile Integration Tests: The close coupling of integration tests to API responses makes them prone to failure due to minor API modifications.

Recommendations

• High Priority: Implement consistent and robust error handling across all methods. Re-throw exceptions with informative messages or return appropriate error codes. Avoid relying on console logging for error handling. Example:

try {
    // ... code that might throw an exception ...
} catch (IOException e) {
    throw new RuntimeException("Failed to perform operation: " + e.getMessage(), e); 
}

• High Priority: Ensure consistent URL construction for createLink and openAttachment across Api and ApiMT classes. Investigate the discrepancy and implement a unified approach.
• High Priority: Refactor integration tests to improve robustness and modularity. Use parameterized tests, separate test data management, and focus on verifying functionality rather than exact response strings. Remove reliance on @Order annotation. Use a dedicated testing framework that allows for parallel test execution. Implement comprehensive testing of error scenarios and boundary conditions. Example: Instead of asserting "Link created successfully", assert that the response status code indicates success and the link exists.
• Medium Priority: Utilize a dedicated JSON library (e.g., Jackson) for parsing JSON responses. This improves parsing reliability and reduces code complexity.
• Medium Priority: Implement a structured logging framework (e.g., Log4j, SLF4j) instead of System.out.println for better error management and centralized logging.
• Low Priority: Validate the assumption of unique entity IDs from createEntityDraft.

Quality Rating

5/10

Overall

The code introduces useful functionality but suffers from significant issues in error handling and testing. The integration tests are particularly fragile and require substantial refactoring. Addressing the high-priority recommendations is crucial before merging.

[github-actions]

Gemini Automated Review
Summary of Changes

This code update introduces new createLink and openAttachment methods in Api.java, ApiInterface.java, and ApiMT.java. The deleteEntityDraft method's return value was updated. Additionally, comprehensive tests for link management, including creation, deletion, and renaming, were added. These tests cover various scenarios, including success cases, failures, permission issues, and edge cases.

Best Practices Review

• Inconsistent Formatting: URL construction differs significantly between Api.java and ApiMT.java.
• Redundant Dependency: Potential redundancy if both manual JSON parsing and a JSON library are used (not explicitly stated but implied in partial reviews).
• Unused Property: None explicitly identified.
• Redundant Exclusion: None explicitly identified.
• Version Mismatch: None explicitly identified.
• Missing Version in dependency: None explicitly identified.
• Hardcoded values: "Books" entity name hardcoded in Api.java.
• Missing Error Handling: The renameAttachment function in ApiMT.java lacks error handling.
• Inconsistent Error Handling: Error messages are too generic in several locations.

Potential Bugs

• Inconsistent URL Construction: URLs for createLink and openAttachment are inconsistently constructed in Api.java and ApiMT.java. This needs thorough verification.
• Hardcoded Entity Names: The entity name "Books" is hardcoded in Api.java's openAttachment method.
• Missing Error Handling (ApiMT.java): The renameAttachment method lacks proper error handling for HTTP responses, potentially leading to silent failures.
• Unclear Error Messages: Generic error messages hinder debugging. More specific messages, including HTTP status codes and details, are needed.
• Fragile String Comparisons in Tests: Tests rely heavily on exact string matching for API responses, making them fragile to API changes.
• Manual JSON Parsing in Tests: Manual substring extraction for JSON parsing is error-prone and difficult to maintain.

Recommendations

1. Standardize URL Construction: Create a helper function or use a template string for URL construction across all classes. Use configuration properties to manage base URLs and service names. (Example: String url = buildUrl(basePath, serviceName, entityName);)

2. Parameterize Entity Name: Change Api.java's openAttachment to accept the entity name as a parameter.

3. Add Error Handling (ApiMT.java): Implement robust error handling in ApiMT.java's renameAttachment, catching non-200 responses and providing detailed error messages including HTTP status codes and response bodies.

4. Improve Error Messages: Enhance all HTTP request methods to provide detailed and informative error messages, including HTTP status codes and error details from the response body.

5. Use a JSON Library for Testing: Replace manual JSON parsing in tests with a library like Jackson for improved robustness and readability.

6. Improve Robustness of API Response Handling in Tests: Parse the JSON response and verify specific fields instead of relying on simple string comparisons.

7. Refactor Test Code for Readability: Refactor repetitive code sections into helper functions.

8. Implement Test Data Management: Define explicit setup and teardown for test data to increase independence and reliability.

Quality Rating

5/10

Overall

The code introduces new functionality and tests, but suffers from several inconsistencies and potential bugs. The recommendations listed above, especially those related to URL standardization, error handling, and robust testing, must be addressed before merging. The inconsistent URL construction and lack of error handling in several places raise serious concerns. Thorough testing, including addressing the fragile string comparison and manual JSON parsing in the tests, is also critical.

[github-actions]

Gemini Automated Review
Summary of Changes
This code change introduces new methods (createLink, openAttachment) in Api.java, ApiInterface.java, and ApiMT.java, updates the return value of deleteEntityDraft, modifies error handling and logging in ApiMT.java, and adds comprehensive JUnit tests covering various link creation, manipulation, and deletion scenarios.

Best Practices Review

• Inconsistent return values: Success messages across methods are inconsistent (strings vs. structured responses).
• Hardcoded URLs: createLink and openAttachment methods use hardcoded URLs.
• Inconsistent Error Handling in Tests: Excessive nesting of if/else and fail() calls in tests.
• System.out.println in tests: Test methods directly print to the console.
• Magic Numbers: Hardcoded values like maximum number of links (e.g., 4) are present.
• Fragile error handling in tests: Error handling relies on parsing JSON responses using string equality.
• Missing or Inconsistent Versioning: No mention of versioning in the provided reviews. This should be checked.
• Redundant Exclusion/Inclusion: This aspect wasn't mentioned in the reviews and needs investigation.
• Unused Property: This aspect wasn't mentioned in the reviews and needs investigation.
• Redundant Dependency: This aspect wasn't mentioned in the reviews and needs investigation.

Potential Bugs

• Hardcoded URLs in createLink and openAttachment reduce flexibility and reusability.
• Inconsistent and unclear return values make error interpretation difficult.
• Uninformative error messages hinder debugging ("Could not create link").
• Brittle tests due to reliance on exact string matching of JSON error responses.
• Tests might fail unexpectedly due to changes in API response structure.

Recommendations

• Prioritize: Parameterize URLs in createLink and openAttachment (see code snippet below).
• Prioritize: Standardize return values using a consistent structure (e.g., status code and message).
• Prioritize: Improve error messages with details (HTTP status codes, response bodies), and use a logging framework.
• Refactor test methods using JUnit assertions and helper functions to improve readability and reduce nested if/else blocks.
• Replace System.out.println in tests with a logging framework.
• Use constants instead of magic numbers.
• Implement robust error handling in tests using a JSON library and assertions instead of string comparisons.
• Consider mocking dependencies in tests (e.g., the api object) using a mocking framework for improved isolation and reliability.
• Investigate and address potential issues related to version mismatch, redundant dependencies, unused properties, and redundant exclusions/inclusions.

Example of improved createLink method:

public String createLink(String serviceName, String entityName, String linkUrl, String linkName) {
    String url = String.format("/%s/%s/links", serviceName, entityName); // Parameterized URL
    try {
        // ... existing code to make API call ...
        if (responseCode == 201) {
            return "Link created successfully"; // Consistent success message
        } else {
            return String.format("Failed to create link. HTTP Status: %d, Response: %s", responseCode, responseBody); // Informative error message
        }
    } catch (IOException e) {
        logger.error("Error creating link: ", e); // Use a logging framework
        return "Error creating link: " + e.getMessage(); // More specific error message
    }
}

Quality Rating
6/10

Overall
The code introduces useful functionality but suffers from several issues related to best practices and potential bugs, particularly concerning error handling and testing. Addressing the prioritized recommendations is crucial before merging. The tests, while extensive, need significant refactoring to improve robustness and readability. A thorough check for version consistency and addressing any potential redundant dependencies or unused properties is also necessary.