-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
Fix leaky unit test #8972
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
Fix leaky unit test #8972
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Summary of Changes
Hello @joehan, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request addresses a leaky unit test within src/init/features/dataconnect/sdk.spec.ts. The test was incorrectly stubbing the native fs module while the underlying code was using fs-extra for file operations, leading to residual connector.yaml files after test runs. The changes ensure that the test correctly stubs fs-extra, preventing the creation of unwanted files and maintaining a clean test environment.
Highlights
- Test Fix: Corrected a leaky unit test in
src/init/features/dataconnect/sdk.spec.tsthat was inadvertently leaving behindconnector.yamlfiles after test execution. - Module Stubbing Alignment: Updated the test's stubbing mechanism to correctly target
fs-extra(specificallywriteFileSyncandensureFileSync) instead of the standardfsmodule, resolving the issue where file operations were not properly mocked.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Code Review
This pull request correctly fixes a leaky unit test by changing the stubbed module from fs to fs-extra and adding a stub for ensureFileSync. The changes are accurate and address the issue described. I've added one comment suggesting an improvement to the test's assertions to make it more comprehensive.
|
|
||
| beforeEach(() => { | ||
| fsStub = sandbox.stub(fs, "writeFileSync"); | ||
| sandbox.stub(fs, "ensureFileSync").returns(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good catch fixing the leaky test by stubbing ensureFileSync. To make this test more robust and fully align with its description ('should write files and generate code'), consider adding assertions to verify that both ensureFileSync and writeFileSync are called during the test execution. This would ensure the file writing part of the actuate function is also tested.
Description
This unit test was leaky because it was stubbing out 'fs' but the code was writing files with 'fs-extra'. This left a extra dataconnect/conector/connector.yaml file floating around after runs.
Scenarios Tested
Ran the tests, and no leftover files/