Get Coverage to 100% #3

kinson · 2017-09-29T15:23:26Z

Addressing #2

coveralls · 2017-09-29T15:25:58Z

Changes Unknown when pulling 2f9b20c on kinson:master into ** on simonewebdesign:master**.

kinson · 2017-09-29T15:27:28Z

This is still in progress obviously. I have a couple of questions so far.

Each of your doctests so far include pid = self() but not PubSub.start_link. How is it that I need to start the gen server with start link in the tests I wrote to be able to call a function on them?

update: I realized that these tests only test the functions they are above and do not actually reach the handle_call/handle_cast functions. This works fine for the handle_cast functions but with the handle call functions I am currently unable to figure out how to test without starting the Genserver.

I will keep searching for this, but I am unsure how I can test the subscribers call on the genserver. I am unable to match against the pid variable thus far and want to be more explicit that an arbitrary array containing one item.

Thanks for your patience and guidance on this, I am sure you could probably do this yourself in less time than it takes to explain it to me!

coveralls · 2017-09-29T20:24:34Z

Changes Unknown when pulling 39c538b on kinson:master into ** on simonewebdesign:master**.

coveralls · 2017-09-29T21:04:23Z

Changes Unknown when pulling b37aec8 on kinson:master into ** on simonewebdesign:master**.

coveralls · 2017-09-30T22:53:52Z

Changes Unknown when pulling 877325e on kinson:master into ** on simonewebdesign:master**.

coveralls · 2017-09-30T23:15:36Z

Changes Unknown when pulling 5bbdb3c on kinson:master into ** on simonewebdesign:master**.

simonewebdesign · 2017-10-02T10:17:43Z

Hey @kinson, thanks for this PR! Sorry I haven't found the time to review it yet — will do it soon!

kinson · 2017-10-02T14:32:07Z

Hey @simonewebdesign no worries at all! There are definitely some places that I want to polish before this gets merged, I'll go ahead and make a few comments on the specific code.

kinson · 2017-10-02T14:33:13Z

lib/pub_sub.ex

+      iex> pid = self()
+      iex> PubSub.subscribe(pid, :my_topic)
+      iex> PubSub.subscribers(:my_topic) |> Enum.count
+      1


this isn't very explicit. In reality PubSub.subscribers returns [#PID<123.1>] or something like that but I am unsure of how to match against the pid type in an array.

Enum.count is good enough, but this would be better:

iex> pid = self() iex> PubSub.subscribe(pid, :my_topic) iex> [subscriber] = PubSub.subscribers(:my_topic) iex> subscriber == pid true

kinson · 2017-10-02T14:34:18Z

test/pub_sub_test.exs

+     assert Process.exit(pid, :kill) == true
+     # shouldn't all subscribers be deleted, making this 0?
+    #  IO.inspect PubSub.subscribers(:my_topic)
+     assert PubSub.subscribers(:my_topic) |> Enum.count == 1


I am unsure why the subscribers list still includes the killed off pid here

kinson · 2017-10-02T14:44:34Z

test/pub_sub_test.exs

+    pid = spawn(fn ->
+      receive do
+        message ->
+          assert message == "Hello!"


I don't believe this is being reached, unsure of how to assert that this subscriber received the message

I think this is what you're looking for: https://hexdocs.pm/ex_unit/ExUnit.Assertions.html#assert_received/2

coveralls · 2017-10-02T14:46:25Z

Changes Unknown when pulling 2c6f8f3 on kinson:master into ** on simonewebdesign:master**.

simonewebdesign

Added a few minor comments, but looks great! Well done!

simonewebdesign · 2017-10-02T17:02:28Z

lib/pub_sub.ex

+      iex> pid = self()
+      iex> PubSub.subscribe(pid, :my_topic)
+      iex> PubSub.subscribers(:my_topic) |> Enum.count
+      1


Enum.count is good enough, but this would be better:

iex> pid = self() iex> PubSub.subscribe(pid, :my_topic) iex> [subscriber] = PubSub.subscribers(:my_topic) iex> subscriber == pid true

simonewebdesign · 2017-10-02T17:03:26Z

mix.lock

+  "mimerl": {:hex, :mimerl, "1.0.2", "993f9b0e084083405ed8252b99460c4f0563e41729ab42d9074fd5e52439be88", [:rebar3], []},
+  "poison": {:hex, :poison, "3.1.0", "d9eb636610e096f86f25d9a46f35a9facac35609a7591b3be3326e99a0484665", [:mix], []},
+  "ssl_verify_fun": {:hex, :ssl_verify_fun, "1.1.1", "28a4d65b7f59893bc2c7de786dec1e1555bd742d336043fe644ae956c3497fbe", [:make, :rebar], []},
+  "unicode_util_compat": {:hex, :unicode_util_compat, "0.2.0", "dbbccf6781821b1c0701845eaf966c9b6d83d7c3bfc65ca2b78b88b8678bfa35", [:rebar3], []}}


Could you unstage this file please?

simonewebdesign · 2017-10-02T17:05:18Z

test/pub_sub_test.exs

+
+     assert Process.exit(pid, :kill) == true
+     ref = Process.monitor(pid)
+     assert_receive {:DOWN, ^ref, _, _, _}


Can probably use assert_down here as well?

simonewebdesign · 2017-10-02T17:09:13Z

test/pub_sub_test.exs

+    pid = spawn(fn ->
+      receive do
+        message ->
+          assert message == "Hello!"


I think this is what you're looking for: https://hexdocs.pm/ex_unit/ExUnit.Assertions.html#assert_received/2

coveralls · 2017-10-02T20:35:52Z

Changes Unknown when pulling a554746 on kinson:master into ** on simonewebdesign:master**.

coveralls · 2017-10-02T20:37:27Z

Changes Unknown when pulling 24a6689 on kinson:master into ** on simonewebdesign:master**.

kinson · 2017-10-02T20:56:26Z

Still having issues with assert_receive for the test "process can publish a message to a topic" test. It consistently tells me that the mailbox is empty even though I can see that the receive loop is processing the message. Perhaps the receive loop is processing the message it before the assertion can find it?

kinson · 2017-10-02T21:16:44Z

Alright I was able to successfully use assert_received with the current process, not a new one. I am not sure if this is comprehensive enough though

coveralls · 2017-10-02T21:31:28Z

Changes Unknown when pulling 13cb163 on kinson:master into ** on simonewebdesign:master**.

simonewebdesign · 2017-10-03T11:42:40Z

It's more than enough, thanks! Just squash all the commits in one and I'll merge your PR 👍

kinson · 2017-10-03T11:57:13Z

Everything should be squashed! 👍

coveralls · 2017-10-03T11:58:12Z

Changes Unknown when pulling 81adcd6 on kinson:master into ** on simonewebdesign:master**.

kinson · 2017-10-03T13:36:22Z

Thanks again for your guidance on this!

kinson commented Oct 2, 2017

View reviewed changes

simonewebdesign requested changes Oct 2, 2017

View reviewed changes

simonewebdesign approved these changes Oct 3, 2017

View reviewed changes

Added doctests and end-to-end tests to get coverage to 100%

81adcd6

kinson force-pushed the master branch from 13cb163 to 81adcd6 Compare October 3, 2017 11:56

simonewebdesign merged commit 5cdb8d4 into simonewebdesign:master Oct 3, 2017

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Get Coverage to 100% #3

Get Coverage to 100% #3

kinson commented Sep 29, 2017

coveralls commented Sep 29, 2017

kinson commented Sep 29, 2017 •

edited

Loading

coveralls commented Sep 29, 2017

coveralls commented Sep 29, 2017

coveralls commented Sep 30, 2017

coveralls commented Sep 30, 2017

simonewebdesign commented Oct 2, 2017

kinson commented Oct 2, 2017

kinson Oct 2, 2017

simonewebdesign Oct 2, 2017

kinson Oct 2, 2017

kinson Oct 2, 2017

simonewebdesign Oct 2, 2017

coveralls commented Oct 2, 2017

simonewebdesign left a comment

simonewebdesign Oct 2, 2017

simonewebdesign Oct 2, 2017

simonewebdesign Oct 2, 2017

simonewebdesign Oct 2, 2017

coveralls commented Oct 2, 2017

coveralls commented Oct 2, 2017

kinson commented Oct 2, 2017

kinson commented Oct 2, 2017

coveralls commented Oct 2, 2017

simonewebdesign commented Oct 3, 2017

kinson commented Oct 3, 2017

coveralls commented Oct 3, 2017

kinson commented Oct 3, 2017

Get Coverage to 100% #3

Get Coverage to 100% #3

Conversation

kinson commented Sep 29, 2017

coveralls commented Sep 29, 2017

kinson commented Sep 29, 2017 • edited Loading

coveralls commented Sep 29, 2017

coveralls commented Sep 29, 2017

coveralls commented Sep 30, 2017

coveralls commented Sep 30, 2017

simonewebdesign commented Oct 2, 2017

kinson commented Oct 2, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

coveralls commented Oct 2, 2017

simonewebdesign left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

coveralls commented Oct 2, 2017

coveralls commented Oct 2, 2017

kinson commented Oct 2, 2017

kinson commented Oct 2, 2017

coveralls commented Oct 2, 2017

simonewebdesign commented Oct 3, 2017

kinson commented Oct 3, 2017

coveralls commented Oct 3, 2017

kinson commented Oct 3, 2017

kinson commented Sep 29, 2017 •

edited

Loading