Refactor OpenApiTypesense.Connection.new/1

[kianmeng]

Adding missing validation and tests when making a new connection.

Summary by Sourcery

Refactor the Connection.new/1 function to include validation for required fields and add corresponding tests to ensure proper functionality and error handling.

Enhancements:

• Add validation for required fields in the Connection.new/1 function to ensure all necessary fields are provided.

Tests:

• Introduce new tests for the Connection.new/1 function to verify correct struct creation and error handling for missing or invalid data.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide by Sourcery

The PR refactors the OpenApiTypesense.Connection.new/1 function to add proper validation for required connection fields and improves error handling. The implementation now validates that all required fields are present in the connection map and raises appropriate error messages when validation fails. The changes also include comprehensive test coverage for the connection creation functionality.

No diagrams generated as the changes look simple and do not need a visual representation.

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Added validation for required connection fields	Implemented field validation using required_fields/0 helper function Added error handling for missing required fields Added type validation to ensure connection parameter is a map Updated function documentation with error case example	lib/open_api_typesense/connection.ex
Added comprehensive test coverage for connection creation	Added tests for default connection creation Added tests for custom connection creation Added tests for validation error cases Added tests for invalid input type handling	test/open_api_typesense_connection_test.exs
Improved code documentation and formatting	Fixed function reference format in documentation Improved code formatting and spacing Added error case example in documentation	lib/open_api_typesense/connection.ex

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time. You can also use
  this command to specify where the summary should be inserted.

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @kianmeng - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟢 General issues: all looks good
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟢 Testing: all looks good
• 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
• 🟢 Documentation: all looks good

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build a1b10d5ef3193d4b73abe7461886f991f3d5df69-PR-2

Details

• 7 of 7 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.02%) to 98.921%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 26ceb5fe3fe7f38ca2d4a67d9dd490e3c9c2f50d:	0.02%
Covered Lines:	275
Relevant Lines:	278

---

💛 - Coveralls

[jaeyson]

Hi @kianmeng, thanks for the PR. There's an error in CI test:

https://github.com/jaeyson/open_api_typesense/actions/runs/12332042761/job/34423378550?pr=2

  1) test new/1 with empty map raises ArgumentError (OpenApiTypesense.ConnectionTest)
Error:      test/open_api_typesense_connection_test.exs:34
     Wrong message for ArgumentError
     expected:
       "Missing required fields: [:port, :scheme, :host, :api_key]"
     actual:
       "Missing required fields: [:api_key, :host, :port, :scheme]"
     code: assert_raise ArgumentError, msg, fn -> Connection.new(%{}) end
     stacktrace:
       test/open_api_typesense_connection_test.exs:36: (test)

..................................................................
Finished in 0.6 seconds (0.6s async, 0.01s sync)
70 tests, 1 failure

Is it the order of the list [:api_key, :host, :port, :scheme]?

[kianmeng]

🥳 🥳 🥳 🥳 🥳