Skip to content
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

Add unittests for async client #1830

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Apr 12, 2024
Merged

Add unittests for async client #1830

merged 7 commits into from
Apr 12, 2024

Conversation

hlohaus
Copy link
Collaborator

@hlohaus hlohaus commented Apr 12, 2024

No description provided.

@hlohaus hlohaus mentioned this pull request Apr 12, 2024
Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Review for "Add unittests for async client"

Hi H Lohaus,

Thank you for contributing to the project by adding unit tests for the async client. Your efforts to enhance the test coverage are greatly appreciated! Here's the review of the changes:

Review Summary

Overall, the tests are well-structured and cover several important functionalities of the async client, including model interactions, token handling, and stream responses. I have some recommendations and a few issues that need addressing:

Recommendations

  1. Consistency in Import Statements

    • It would be better to maintain consistency in how modules and classes are imported across test files and the actual implementation. This not only improves readability but also helps in managing dependencies better.
  2. Newline at End of File

    • Please add a newline at the end of async_client.py to comply with PEP8 standards, which suggest that each file should end with a newline.
  3. Exception Handling in async_client.py

    • The fallback to _anext in case anext is not defined is a good catch. However, it might be beneficial to define anext correctly or handle this scenario in a way that doesn't involve catching a NameError. Perhaps consider defining anext within the scope where it's used if it's not part of the standard library or another included module.

Issues to Address

  1. Duplicate Test Function Names

    • In integration.py, you have two functions named test_openai. One of them should be renamed to reflect that it's testing the DuckDuckGo provider to avoid overwriting tests.
  2. Error Handling in Vercel.py

    • The removal of RateLimitError and ResponseStatusError from Vercel.py needs further discussion. If these exceptions are not relevant anymore, the change is fine, but if the API still can raise these, they should be handled.
  3. JavaScript Functionality in chat.v1.js

    • The change from setting placeholder to directly updating the value of messageInput is crucial. Ensure that this change doesn't interfere with other UI elements or expected user flows. Also, restoring focus to messageInput after speech recognition stops is a good user experience improvement.

Conclusion

The tests added significantly improve the robustness of the async client module. After making the recommended changes and addressing the issues, it should be good to merge.

Please make these adjustments, and it should be ready for another review. Keep up the great work!

etc/unittest/__main__.py Show resolved Hide resolved
etc/unittest/__main__.py Show resolved Hide resolved
etc/unittest/__main__.py Show resolved Hide resolved
etc/unittest/__main__.py Show resolved Hide resolved
etc/unittest/__main__.py Show resolved Hide resolved
g4f/gui/client/static/js/chat.v1.js Show resolved Hide resolved
g4f/gui/client/static/js/chat.v1.js Show resolved Hide resolved
g4f/gui/client/static/js/chat.v1.js Show resolved Hide resolved
g4f/gui/client/static/js/chat.v1.js Show resolved Hide resolved
g4f/gui/client/static/js/chat.v1.js Show resolved Hide resolved
@hlohaus hlohaus merged commit 0b712c2 into xtekky:main Apr 12, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

1 participant