added testing for things #2
Conversation
WalkthroughA new test project, Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Test as Test Method
participant Builder as TestHttpClientBuilder
participant Handler as TestHttpMessageHandler
participant Client as HttpClient
participant Server as Mocked HTTP Server
Test->>Builder: Create() / With_Payload()
Builder->>Handler: Instantiate handler (optionally with payload)
Builder->>Client: Return HttpClient with handler
Test->>Client: SendAsync(request)
Client->>Handler: SendAsync(request)
Handler->>Server: Simulate response (with payload)
Handler->>Client: Return HttpResponseMessage
Client->>Test: Return response
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
✨ Finishing Touches
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. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
TestUtils.Tests/MockLoggerTests.cs (2)
34-34: Consider C# naming conventions for test methods.The method name uses underscores (
Fetch_Entries_For) which doesn't follow standard C# naming conventions. Consider using PascalCase instead.- public void Fetch_Entries_For_WhenCalled_ReturnsEntriesForLevel() + public void FetchEntriesFor_WhenCalled_ReturnsEntriesForLevel()
48-55: Consider testing different log levels more comprehensively.The
IsEnabledtest assumes the method always returnstruefor all log levels. Consider verifying this behavior is intentional and perhaps test with a wider range of log levels includingLogLevel.NoneandLogLevel.Trace.[Test] -public void IsEnabled_Always_ReturnsTrue() +public void IsEnabled_ForAllLogLevels_ReturnsTrue() { - // Act & Assert - Assert.That(_logger.IsEnabled(LogLevel.Information), Is.True); - Assert.That(_logger.IsEnabled(LogLevel.Error), Is.True); - Assert.That(_logger.IsEnabled(LogLevel.Debug), Is.True); + // Arrange + var logLevels = Enum.GetValues<LogLevel>(); + + // Act & Assert + foreach (var logLevel in logLevels) + { + Assert.That(_logger.IsEnabled(logLevel), Is.True, $"Expected {logLevel} to be enabled"); + } }TestUtils.Tests/MockOptionsTests.cs (2)
31-65: Good test coverage but consider eliminating code duplication.The tests are well-structured and provide good coverage:
- Value property test mirrors the MockOptionsTests approach appropriately
- Get method test correctly verifies the NotImplementedException behavior
- Both tests follow proper AAA pattern
However, the TestOptions class is duplicated from the MockOptionsTests class.
Consider extracting the TestOptions class to eliminate duplication:
+public class TestOptions +{ + public string? Name { get; set; } + public int Value { get; set; } +} + public class MockOptionsTests { - private class TestOptions - { - public string? Name { get; set; } - public int Value { get; set; } - } // ... rest of class } public class MockOptionsSnapshotTests { - private class TestOptions - { - public string? Name { get; set; } - public int Value { get; set; } - } // ... rest of class }
1-65: Consider adding edge case tests for more comprehensive coverage.The current tests provide good basic coverage. Consider adding these additional test scenarios:
[Test] public void Value_WithNullName_ReturnsCorrectly() { // Arrange var expectedOptions = new TestOptions { Name = null, Value = 0 }; var mockOptions = new MockOptions<TestOptions>(expectedOptions); // Act var result = mockOptions.Value; // Assert Assert.That(result.Name, Is.Null); Assert.That(result.Value, Is.EqualTo(0)); } [Test] public void Constructor_WithNullOptions_BehavesAppropriately() { // Test how the mock handles null input if applicable }This would ensure the mocks handle edge cases gracefully.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
TestUtils.Tests/HttpTests.cs(1 hunks)TestUtils.Tests/MockLoggerTests.cs(1 hunks)TestUtils.Tests/MockOptionsTests.cs(1 hunks)TestUtils.Tests/TestUtils.Tests.csproj(1 hunks)TestUtils.sln(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (8)
TestUtils.sln (1)
1-52: LGTM! Solution file properly configured.The solution file correctly adds the new test project with appropriate platform configurations and build mappings. The structure follows Visual Studio conventions.
TestUtils.Tests/TestUtils.Tests.csproj (2)
12-16: Package versions look current and appropriate.The NUnit and test SDK package versions are recent and should provide good testing capabilities.
4-4:Details
❓ Verification inconclusive
Verify .NET 9.0 compatibility across environments.
The project targets .NET 9.0, which is very recent. Ensure that all development and CI/CD environments support this framework version.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check if .NET 9.0 is available and get latest LTS version dotnet --list-sdks | grep "9.0" dotnet --list-sdks | grep -E "6.0|8.0" | tail -2Length of output: 276
Verify .NET 9.0 compatibility across all environments.
Ensure that every development workstation and CI/CD pipeline has the .NET 9.0 SDK installed and in use:
- Confirm no
global.jsonor other SDK pinning forces an older version.- Update build agents, Docker images, and any on-premise servers to include .NET 9.0.
- Run
dotnet --list-sdkson a representative CI runner to verify the SDK is available.TestUtils.Tests/MockLoggerTests.cs (1)
18-31: Good test structure and coverage for basic logging functionality.The test properly verifies that log entries are stored and retrievable. The arrange-act-assert pattern is well implemented.
TestUtils.Tests/HttpTests.cs (2)
40-57: Excellent async test implementation.The async test properly verifies the complete flow including response payload, status code, and request capture. The test structure is well-organized and comprehensive.
10-24: Good verification of object creation and types.The test properly verifies that the builder creates the correct types and that objects are not null. The type assertions add good validation.
TestUtils.Tests/MockOptionsTests.cs (2)
1-4: LGTM! Clean imports and modern namespace declaration.The file uses appropriate imports and the file-scoped namespace declaration is a good modern C# practice.
6-29: Well-structured test class with comprehensive assertions.The test follows good practices:
- Clear AAA pattern structure
- Descriptive test method name
- Comprehensive assertions that verify both reference equality and individual properties
- Good use of NUnit's constraint-based assertions
Summary by CodeRabbit