Improve test readability in AsHumanReadableTextTest.java with switch-based locale handling

[jy95]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Improved test readability and maintainability via formatting and minor control-flow refinements.
  • Centralized locale-based expected-text selection for clearer localization handling; default remains English.
  • Removed redundant inline comments and simplified assertions; no changes to public behavior or test outcomes.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Refactors R4 and R5 test files: collapses builder constructions, removes spacer comments in helper dosage methods, and replaces locale-specific if/else chains in getExpectedText(Locale) with a locale.toLanguageTag() switch including a default case; no public API signatures changed.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
R4 Test Refactor r4/src/test/java/io/github/jy95/fds/r4/methods/AsHumanReadableTextTest.java	Collapsed FDSConfigR4.builder() calls to single-line form; removed spacer comments before getFirstDosage(), getSecondDosage(), getThirdDosage(); replaced locale if/else chain with locale.toLanguageTag() switch and default; minor newline/formatting tweaks.
R5 Test Refactor r5/src/test/java/io/github/jy95/fds/r5/methods/AsHumanReadableTextTest.java	Collapsed FDSConfigR5.builder() formatting; simplified assertions to compare expected text directly; removed redundant inline comments in helper methods; replaced locale if/else chain with locale.toLanguageTag() switch including explicit cases (fr, de, es, it, nl-BE) and default English mapping.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

Poem

🐇 Hops of tidy code I bring,
Switches sing where branches swing,
Builders shortened, comments gone,
Tests still pass from dusk to dawn.
A rabbit cheers: neat changes, spring!

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning, 1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title is overly vague and generic, using 'Update' without specifying what was actually changed in the test files.	Use a more descriptive title that captures the main change, such as 'Refactor AsHumanReadableTextTest locale mapping logic' or 'Convert locale-specific if-else to switch statement in AsHumanReadableTextTest'.

✅ Passed checks (1 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between dbb07e5 and 36dcf0a.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• r5/src/test/java/io/github/jy95/fds/r5/methods/AsHumanReadableTextTest.java

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis

🔇 Additional comments (3)

r5/src/test/java/io/github/jy95/fds/r5/methods/AsHumanReadableTextTest.java (3)

31-33: LGTM - Clean formatting improvement.

The collapsed builder invocation improves readability without changing behavior.

---

46-48: LGTM - Consistent formatting with testOneItem.

Same formatting improvement applied consistently across test methods.

---

55-55: LGTM - Good extraction of expected text logic.

Centralizing the expected text in a helper method improves maintainability and follows DRY principles.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ +0.00% (target: -1.00%)	✅ ∅

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (a427992)	1582	1582	100.00%
Head commit (36dcf0a)	3164 (+1582)	3164 (+1582)	100.00% (+0.00%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#295)	0	0	∅ (not applicable)

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences