Development: Adjust server tests to restructuring into modules
#9314
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request involves the removal of several methods from various repository interfaces in the codebase. These changes affect how certain entities, such as Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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
Documentation and Community
|
github-actions
bot
added
tests
server
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 17
🧹 Outside diff range comments (34)
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/BonusFactory.java (1)
Line range hint
3-38: Approve implementation with minor suggestionThe
BonusFactoryclass implementation is well-structured and follows the utility/factory pattern guideline. It provides a clear, static method for generating Bonus objects, which is useful for creating test data. The implementation also avoids potential circular dependencies in JSON serialization.Good practices observed:
- Well-documented method with clear JavaDoc comments.
- Adherence to the fixed_data guideline for test data creation.
- No direct database access, following the avoid_db_access guideline.
Consider extracting the creation of GradingScale objects into a private helper method to improve readability:
public class BonusFactory { public static Bonus generateBonus(BonusStrategy bonusStrategy, Double weight, long sourceGradingScaleId, long bonusToGradingScaleId) { Bonus bonus = new Bonus(); bonus.setBonusStrategy(bonusStrategy); bonus.setWeight(weight); - // New object is created to avoid circular dependency on json serialization. - var sourceGradingScale = new GradingScale(); - sourceGradingScale.setId(sourceGradingScaleId); + var sourceGradingScale = createGradingScale(sourceGradingScaleId); bonus.setSourceGradingScale(sourceGradingScale); - // New object is created to avoid circular dependency on json serialization. - var bonusToGradingScale = new GradingScale(); - bonusToGradingScale.setId(bonusToGradingScaleId); + var bonusToGradingScale = createGradingScale(bonusToGradingScaleId); bonus.setBonusToGradingScale(bonusToGradingScale); return bonus; } + private static GradingScale createGradingScale(long id) { + // New object is created to avoid circular dependency on json serialization. + var gradingScale = new GradingScale(); + gradingScale.setId(id); + return gradingScale; + } }This change would make the
generateBonusmethod more concise and easier to read while maintaining the same functionality.src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/service/connectors/AthenaHealthIndicatorTest.java (2)
Line range hint
23-45: Test methods comply with coding guidelines, with room for minor improvements.The test methods (healthUp, healthUpExampleModuleDown, and healthDown) adhere to the specified coding guidelines:
- Descriptive naming
- Small and specific tests
- Use of assertThat for assertions
- Static mocks (athenaRequestMockProvider)
To further improve the tests, consider:
- Adding more specific assertions (assert_specificity: true).
- Utilizing JUnit 5 features like @DisplayName or @nested for better test organization.
- If applicable, add tests to track DB query count for performance (db_query_count_tests: track_performance).
Line range hint
1-45: Overall, the test class is well-structured and follows good practices.The AthenaHealthIndicatorTest class is well-organized and adheres to the provided coding guidelines. It effectively tests the AthenaHealthIndicator using clear, focused test methods. The use of constants for module names and status indicators enhances readability and maintainability.
To further enhance the test class, consider:
- Adding a brief class-level Javadoc comment explaining the purpose of these tests.
- If applicable, use @DisplayName annotations to provide more descriptive test names in test reports.
- Consider grouping related tests using @nested classes if the test suite grows larger in the future.
These suggestions are minor and optional. The current implementation is already of good quality.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/StudentScoreUtilService.java (1)
Line range hint
23-59: Methods adhere to guidelines, but consider reducing duplication.The
createStudentScoremethods follow the coding guidelines by using fixed data, being small and specific, and having descriptive names. However, there's some code duplication between the two methods.Consider extracting the common logic into a private helper method to reduce duplication:
private StudentScore createBaseStudentScore(Exercise exercise, User user) { StudentScore studentScore = new StudentScore(); studentScore.setExercise(exercise); studentScore.setUser(user); return studentScore; }Then, use this helper method in both
createStudentScoremethods to reduce duplication.src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/core/web/admin/AuditResource.java (2)
Line range hint
66-78: Consider refactoring date handling ingetByDatesmethod.While the method correctly implements pagination and access control, there are a few areas for improvement:
- The date conversion logic could be moved to a separate utility method or service to enhance reusability and maintain the single responsibility principle.
- Using
ZoneId.systemDefault()might lead to inconsistencies in a distributed system. Consider using a fixed timezone or accepting the timezone as a parameter.Here's a suggested refactoring:
@GetMapping(value = "audits", params = { "fromDate", "toDate" }) @EnforceAdmin public ResponseEntity<List<AuditEvent>> getByDates( @RequestParam(value = "fromDate") LocalDate fromDate, @RequestParam(value = "toDate") LocalDate toDate, Pageable pageable) { Instant from = dateService.convertToInstant(fromDate, true); Instant to = dateService.convertToInstant(toDate, false); Page<AuditEvent> page = auditEventService.findByDates(from, to, pageable); HttpHeaders headers = generatePaginationHttpHeaders(ServletUriComponentsBuilder.fromCurrentRequest(), page); return new ResponseEntity<>(page.getContent(), headers, HttpStatus.OK); }This refactoring assumes the creation of a
DateServicewith methods to handle date conversions consistently across the application.
Line range hint
87-92: Consider simplifying path variable ingetmethod.The
getmethod is well-implemented, following RESTful principles and using proper error handling. However, there's a minor point to consider:The path variable pattern
{id:.+}allows for IDs with dots, which is unnecessary for aLongID. This could potentially lead to incorrect matching of IDs.Consider simplifying the
@GetMappingannotation:@GetMapping("audits/{id}")This change ensures that only valid
Longvalues are matched as IDs, preventing potential issues with URL parsing.src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorParticipationResourceIntegrationTest.java (1)
Line range hint
1-99: Overall adherence to coding guidelines is good, with some potential improvements.The test class largely follows the provided coding guidelines:
- Test names are descriptive and specific.
- JUnit 5 features are utilized.
- AssertJ's
assertThatis used for assertions.- The use of test repositories aligns with the guideline to avoid direct DB access.
However, there are a few areas where the guidelines could be more explicitly followed:
- Consider using ArchUnit to enforce package rules if not done elsewhere.
- If performance is a concern, implement DB query count tracking for relevant tests.
- Evaluate if static mocks could be beneficial for some of the dependencies.
These suggestions aim to further align the test class with the provided guidelines and potentially improve test quality and performance.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorLeaderboardServiceIntegrationTest.java (1)
Line range hint
1-105: Good adherence to coding guidelines with room for improvement.The test class generally follows the provided coding guidelines:
- Uses descriptive test names (e.g.,
testLeaderboardData_forCourseWithExercises).- Employs JUnit 5 features (
@BeforeEach,@Test).- Uses
assertThatfor assertions, enhancing readability.- Implements
@WithMockUserfor authentication in tests.Suggestions for improvement:
- Consider adding ArchUnit tests to enforce package rules, as per the guideline "archunit_use: enforce_package_rules".
- If applicable, add tests to track database query count for performance monitoring (guideline: "db_query_count_tests: track_performance").
- Evaluate if the current tests can be made more specific or broken down into smaller, more focused tests (guideline: "test_size: small_specific").
To implement ArchUnit tests, consider adding a new test method:
@Test void testPackageStructure() { JavaClasses importedClasses = new ClassFileImporter().importPackages("de.tum.cit.aet.artemis"); ArchRule rule = classes() .that().resideInAPackage("..assessment..") .should().onlyBeAccessed().byAnyPackage("..assessment..", "..config.."); rule.check(importedClasses); }Don't forget to add the necessary ArchUnit dependency to your project if not already present.
src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/iris/service/pyris/PyrisConnectorService.java (2)
Line range hint
108-108: Address the TODO comment.There's a TODO comment regarding adding error ingestion UI. This should be addressed or tracked as a separate issue if it's not part of the current PR scope.
Would you like me to create a GitHub issue to track this TODO item?
Line range hint
78-91: Consider adding JavaDoc to public methods.The
executePipelineandexecuteLectureWebhookmethods are public but lack JavaDoc. Adding documentation for these methods would improve code readability and maintainability.Consider adding JavaDoc to these methods, following this template:
/** * Executes a pipeline with the given feature and variant. * * @param feature The feature name of the pipeline to execute * @param variant The variant of the feature to execute * @param executionDTO The DTO sent as a body for the execution * @throws PyrisConnectorException If there's an error connecting to Pyris * @throws IrisException If there's an error processing the request in Pyris */ public void executePipeline(String feature, String variant, Object executionDTO) { // ... existing implementation ... } /** * Executes a webhook and sends lectures to the webhook with the given variant. * * @param variant The variant of the feature to execute * @param executionDTO The DTO sent as a body for the execution * @throws PyrisConnectorException If there's an error connecting to Pyris * @throws IrisException If there's an error processing the request in Pyris */ public void executeLectureWebhook(String variant, PyrisWebhookLectureIngestionExecutionDTO executionDTO) { // ... existing implementation ... }Also applies to: 93-106
src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/iris/web/open/PublicPyrisStatusUpdateResource.java (4)
Line range hint
84-97: LGTM: Method is well-implemented, but consider refactoring.The
setStatusOfCourseChatJobmethod follows the same secure and best practices assetStatusOfJob. However, there's a high degree of similarity between these methods, which suggests an opportunity for refactoring to reduce code duplication.Consider creating a generic method that can handle both exercise and course chat jobs, parameterizing the job type. This would improve maintainability and reduce the risk of inconsistencies between similar methods.
Line range hint
112-126: LGTM: Well-implemented method, but reinforces need for refactoring.The
setCompetencyExtractionJobStatusmethod follows the same secure and best practices as the previous methods. This consistency is good for maintainability, but it also highlights the opportunity for refactoring to reduce code duplication across these similar methods.Consider implementing a generic method that can handle different types of jobs (exercise chat, course chat, competency extraction) based on a parameter. This would significantly reduce code duplication and improve overall maintainability.
Line range hint
138-156: LGTM: Well-implemented method with additional type safety.The
setStatusOfIngestionJobmethod follows the same secure and best practices as the previous methods, with an additional type check forIngestionWebhookJob. This extra check enhances type safety, which is a good practice.However, the overall similarity to other methods in this class continues to highlight the opportunity for refactoring. Consider creating a generic method that can handle different job types, including this additional type check where necessary. This would reduce code duplication while maintaining the required type safety for each job type.
Line range hint
1-158: Overall assessment: Well-implemented controller with opportunity for refactoring.The
PublicPyrisStatusUpdateResourceclass is generally well-structured and follows good practices:
- Proper use of annotations and dependency injection
- Consistent error handling and input validation
- Secure authentication checks
However, there's significant code duplication across the status update methods. To improve maintainability and reduce the risk of inconsistencies:
- Consider implementing a generic method that can handle different job types.
- Use method parameters or a strategy pattern to accommodate job-specific behaviors.
- Extract common validation logic into a separate method.
This refactoring would make the code more DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) and easier to maintain in the long run.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/ComplaintUtilService.java (2)
Line range hint
1-16: LGTM! Consider organizing imports.The package change and the use of test repositories are appropriate for this test utility service. These changes align well with the PR objectives of restructuring into modules.
Consider organizing the imports alphabetically for better readability. For example:
import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.domain.Complaint; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.domain.ComplaintResponse; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.domain.ComplaintType; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.domain.Result; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.dto.AssessmentUpdateDTO; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.repository.ComplaintRepository; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.test_repository.ComplaintResponseTestRepository; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.test_repository.ResultTestRepository; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.core.domain.User; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.core.test_repository.UserTestRepository; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.core.user.util.UserUtilService; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.exercise.domain.Submission; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.exercise.domain.Team; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.exercise.domain.participation.Participation;
Line range hint
23-41: LGTM! Consider constructor injection for better testability.The updates to use test repositories are consistent with the changes in import statements and align with the PR objectives.
Consider using constructor injection instead of field injection for better testability. This approach makes dependencies explicit and allows for easier mocking in unit tests. Here's an example of how you could refactor this:
@Service public class ComplaintUtilService { private final UserUtilService userUtilService; private final ResultTestRepository resultTestRepository; private final ComplaintRepository complaintRepo; private final ComplaintResponseTestRepository complaintResponseRepo; private final UserTestRepository userRepo; @Autowired public ComplaintUtilService(UserUtilService userUtilService, ResultTestRepository resultTestRepository, ComplaintRepository complaintRepo, ComplaintResponseTestRepository complaintResponseRepo, UserTestRepository userRepo) { this.userUtilService = userUtilService; this.resultTestRepository = resultTestRepository; this.complaintRepo = complaintRepo; this.complaintResponseRepo = complaintResponseRepo; this.userRepo = userRepo; } // ... rest of the class }src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/RatingResourceIntegrationTest.java (1)
Missing ArchUnit Usage in Test Class
The
RatingResourceIntegrationTestdoes not utilize ArchUnit for enforcing architectural rules, unlike other test classes in the project. To adhere to the coding guidelines, please incorporate ArchUnit tests into this class.🔗 Analysis chain
Line range hint
1-191: Well-structured and comprehensive test suite.The
RatingResourceIntegrationTestclass is well-implemented and adheres to the provided coding guidelines:
- Test naming is descriptive and follows conventions.
- Tests are small and specific, covering various scenarios.
- JUnit 5 features like
@ParameterizedTestare utilized.- Assertions use
assertThatas required.- The utility service factory pattern is employed (e.g.,
ParticipationFactory).- Authentication is handled using
@WithMockUser, aligning with the static mocks strategy.To ensure complete adherence to the coding guidelines, please verify the following:
- ArchUnit usage for enforcing package rules.
- Tracking of DB query counts in tests.
You can run the following script to check for ArchUnit usage:
If the script doesn't return any results, consider adding ArchUnit tests to enforce package rules as per the coding guidelines.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check for ArchUnit usage in test files rg --type java 'import com.tngtech.archunit' src/test/javaLength of output: 8195
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/AthenaExerciseIntegrationTest.java (2)
Line range hint
1-32: LGTM! Consider organizing imports.The package declaration and import statements have been updated correctly to reflect the new module structure. This aligns well with the PR objectives of adjusting server tests to the restructuring into modules.
Consider organizing the imports alphabetically within each group (static imports, java imports, and project-specific imports) for better readability. For example:
import static de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.core.connector.AthenaRequestMockProvider.*; import static org.assertj.core.api.Assertions.assertThat; import static org.springframework.test.web.servlet.result.MockMvcResultMatchers.status; import java.time.ZonedDateTime; import java.util.List; import com.fasterxml.jackson.databind.ObjectMapper; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.core.domain.Course; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.core.util.CourseTestService; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.exam.domain.ExerciseGroup; import de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.exam.util.ExamUtilService; // ... (rest of the imports)
Line range hint
1-231: Consider additional improvements for better alignment with coding guidelines.The changes made to this file are good and align well with the PR objectives. However, to fully comply with the coding guidelines, consider the following suggestions:
Test naming: Ensure all test method names are descriptive and follow a consistent naming convention (e.g.,
shouldDoSomethingWhenSomeCondition).Test size: Review each test to ensure it's focused on testing a specific behavior. Consider breaking down larger tests into smaller, more specific ones.
JUnit 5 features: Utilize JUnit 5 features like
@DisplayName,@Nested, or parameterized tests where appropriate to improve test organization and readability.AssertJ usage: Replace any remaining JUnit assertions with AssertJ's
assertThat()for more readable and specific assertions.ArchUnit: Consider adding ArchUnit tests to enforce package rules, especially given the recent restructuring.
DB query count tests: Add tests to track and assert on the number of database queries executed during test runs to ensure performance.
Util/Service/Factory pattern: Ensure that utility classes, services, and factories are being used consistently throughout the tests.
Mock strategy: Review the use of mocks and ensure that static mocks are being used where appropriate.
Context restart minimization: Analyze if there are opportunities to minimize context restarts between tests for better performance.
Would you like me to provide specific examples for any of these suggestions?
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/GradingScaleUtilService.java (2)
Line range hint
18-19: Consider using constructor injection instead of field injection.While the current implementation using
@Autowiredfor field injection works, consider switching to constructor injection for theGradingScaleRepository. This change would improve testability and make dependencies more explicit.private final GradingScaleRepository gradingScaleRepository; @Autowired public GradingScaleUtilService(GradingScaleRepository gradingScaleRepository) { this.gradingScaleRepository = gradingScaleRepository; }This approach aligns better with the principle of making dependencies explicit and allows for easier mocking in unit tests.
Line range hint
134-214: Consider decomposing complex methods for improved readability and maintainability.The methods
generateGradingScaleandgenerateGradingScaleWithStickyStepare quite long and complex. Consider breaking them down into smaller, more focused methods. This would improve readability, maintainability, and testability.For example, you could extract the grade step creation logic into a separate method:
private GradeStep createGradeStep(double lowerBound, double upperBound, boolean isLowerBoundInclusive, boolean isUpperBoundInclusive, boolean isPassingGrade, String gradeName, GradingScale gradingScale) { GradeStep gradeStep = new GradeStep(); gradeStep.setLowerBoundPercentage(lowerBound); gradeStep.setUpperBoundPercentage(upperBound); gradeStep.setLowerBoundInclusive(isLowerBoundInclusive); gradeStep.setUpperBoundInclusive(isUpperBoundInclusive); gradeStep.setIsPassingGrade(isPassingGrade); gradeStep.setGradeName(gradeName); gradeStep.setGradingScale(gradingScale); return gradeStep; }This would simplify the main methods and make the code more modular.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ParticipantScoreIntegrationTest.java (1)
Line range hint
1-284: Overall adherence to coding guidelines is good, with room for minor improvementsThe test file generally follows the provided coding guidelines:
- Test names are descriptive
- JUnit 5 features are used
- assertThat() is used for assertions
- Tests are small and specific
- Fixed data is used (TEST_PREFIX)
- Database access is minimized using test repositories
Suggestions for improvement:
- Consider adding more specific assertions in some cases. For example, in the
getCourseScores_asInstructorOfCourse_shouldReturnCourseScorestest, you could useassertThat(courseScores).extracting("studentLogin").contains(TEST_PREFIX + "student1")for a more precise assertion.- Add ArchUnit tests to enforce package rules, as mentioned in the coding guidelines.
- Consider adding tests to track the number of database queries for performance monitoring.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/ComplaintResponseServiceTest.java (1)
Line range hint
65-232: Tests adhere to guidelines, with room for improvement.The test methods generally follow the provided coding guidelines:
- Descriptive test names are used.
- Tests are small and specific.
- JUnit 5 features are utilized.
- assertThat is used for assertions.
However, consider the following improvements:
- Enhance assert specificity by providing more detailed error messages.
- Consider implementing database query count tracking for performance monitoring.
Example of improving assert specificity:
-assertThat(complaintResponseService.isUserAuthorizedToRespondToComplaint(textExerciseComplaint, instructor)).isTrue(); +assertThat(complaintResponseService.isUserAuthorizedToRespondToComplaint(textExerciseComplaint, instructor)) + .as("Instructor should be authorized to respond to complaint") + .isTrue();For database query count tracking, consider using a tool like Spring Test DBUnit or implementing a custom solution to monitor query execution during tests.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorParticipationIntegrationTest.java (1)
Line range hint
1-269: Suggestions for improved compliance with coding guidelinesThe test class generally adheres well to the provided coding guidelines. However, consider the following improvements:
Some test methods, like
testTutorParticipateInTextExerciseWithExampleSubmissionAddingUnnecessaryFeedbackBadRequest, are quite long. Consider breaking these down into smaller, more focused tests to improve readability and maintainability.The use of static mocks, as mentioned in the coding guidelines, is not evident in the changed code. If applicable, consider incorporating static mocks to improve test isolation.
There's no clear evidence of tracking DB query counts for performance testing. Consider adding this to relevant test methods to ensure optimal database interaction.
These changes would further align the test class with the provided coding guidelines and potentially improve the overall quality and performance of the tests.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/ResultServiceTest.java (1)
Line range hint
1-265: Summary: Restructuring changes look good, consider additional test casesThe changes to
ResultServiceTest.javaalign well with the PR objectives of restructuring the codebase into modules and using test repositories. Here's a summary of the key points:
- Package declaration and imports have been updated correctly.
- Repository variables now use test repository implementations, enhancing test isolation.
- Existing test methods remain unchanged, which maintains current test coverage.
Consider the following suggestions to further improve the test suite:
- Add new test cases to cover any new functionality introduced by the restructuring.
- Review and update test data setup in the
reset()method if necessary to reflect any changes in data structure or relationships.- Consider adding tests specifically for the new test repositories to ensure they behave as expected.
To implement these suggestions, you could start by adding a new test method like this:
@Test @WithMockUser(username = TEST_PREFIX + "student1", roles = "STUDENT") void testNewFunctionalityIntroducedByRestructuring() { // Setup test data // ... // Call the method under test // ... // Assert the expected outcome // ... }Remember to follow the existing patterns in the file for consistency, such as using
assertThatfor assertions and following the naming conventions for test methods.src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/AssessmentTeamComplaintIntegrationTest.java (1)
Line range hint
1-324: LGTM: Test structure adheres to guidelines with room for improvementThe overall test structure adheres well to the provided guidelines:
- Descriptive test names (test_naming guideline)
- Focused test scenarios (test_size guideline)
- Use of JUnit 5 features like @beforeeach (junit5_features guideline)
- Proper authentication testing with @WithMockUser
To further improve the test suite:
- Consider using AssertJ's assertThat more consistently across all assertions (assert_use guideline).
- Explore opportunities to track database query counts in performance-critical tests (db_query_count_tests guideline).
- Evaluate if ArchUnit can be used to enforce package rules (archunit_use guideline).
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/CourseScoreCalculationServiceTest.java (1)
Line range hint
3-42: Update imports to avoid star imports and use specific classesThe import statements have been updated to reflect the new package structure and the use of test repositories. However, there's a star import on line 3 that should be replaced with specific imports. According to the project's coding standards, star imports should be avoided.
Please replace the star import with specific imports for the classes you're using from the
org.assertj.core.api.Assertionspackage.Also, ensure that all necessary classes are imported and that there are no unused imports.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/GradingScaleServiceTest.java (2)
Line range hint
59-437: Test methods are well-structured, but some improvements could be made.The test methods follow good practices such as descriptive names, parameterized tests, mocked authentication, and consistent use of AssertJ assertions. However, consider the following improvements:
- Add more edge cases to parameterized tests, especially for boundary conditions.
- Consider using @DisplayName for better test descriptions in test reports.
- Some test methods are quite long (e.g., testGradeStepMatchingForRoundingErrors1-12). Consider breaking these into smaller, more focused tests.
- Add comments explaining the purpose of complex test scenarios, especially for the rounding error tests.
Line range hint
1-437: Good compliance with coding guidelines, with minor improvement suggestions.The test class generally follows the provided coding guidelines:
- Proper naming convention with "Test" suffix
- Use of JUnit 5 features
- Consistent use of assertThat
- Avoidance of direct database access
Consider the following minor improvements:
- Some test methods (e.g., testGradeStepMatchingForRoundingErrors1-12) could be more specific and smaller. Consider breaking these into separate, more focused tests.
- Add @DisplayName annotations to improve test readability in reports.
- Consider using @nested classes to group related tests, improving organization and readability.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/AthenaResourceIntegrationTest.java (1)
Line range hint
51-486: LGTM: Test methods remain comprehensive and unchanged.The test methods have not been significantly altered, which is good for maintaining consistency. They cover a wide range of scenarios including success cases, access control, and error handling. The use of appropriate annotations for user roles and mock data is commendable.
Consider adding new tests if the restructuring has introduced any new behaviors or edge cases that are not covered by the existing tests.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/BonusIntegrationTest.java (1)
Line range hint
1-435: Overall, the changes inBonusIntegrationTest.javaare well-implemented and align with the PR objectives.The file has been successfully restructured to fit the new package organization while maintaining comprehensive test coverage. The test methods, helper functions, and utility methods are well-designed and should effectively validate the bonus calculation functionality after the restructuring process.
To further improve the test suite, consider the following suggestions:
- Add comments to complex test scenarios to explain the expected behavior.
- Consider using parameterized tests for more edge cases in bonus calculations.
- Ensure that these tests are included in the CI/CD pipeline to catch any potential regressions during future development.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/GradingScaleIntegrationTest.java (1)
Line range hint
1-638: Consider a comprehensive review of the entire test class.The changes made to this test class, while minimal, are part of a larger refactoring effort to improve test isolation and organization. The core functionality of the test methods remains unchanged, which is positive.
To ensure full alignment with the new structure:
- Review all test methods to verify they're using the appropriate test repositories and utility services.
- Check if any test methods need updates due to the removal of
PageableSearchUtilService.- Verify that the test class is fully compatible with the new
AbstractSpringIntegrationIndependentTestbase class.- Consider adding more detailed comments or documentation to explain the purpose of each test method, especially if they've been affected by the restructuring.
This comprehensive review will help maintain the integrity and clarity of the test suite as the codebase evolves.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ResultListenerIntegrationTest.java (1)
Line range hint
1-472: Overall assessment: Changes successfully implement the use of TestRepositories.The modifications in this file consistently replace production repositories with their test counterparts, aligning with the PR objectives. These changes enhance test isolation by ensuring that test data is used instead of production data. The overall structure and logic of the test class remain intact, preserving the existing test scenarios while improving their reliability.
Consider adding a comment at the beginning of the class explaining the use of TestRepositories and their benefits in the context of these integration tests. This would help future developers understand the testing strategy employed in this class.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ResultServiceIntegrationTest.java (1)
Line range hint
1-863: Consider refactoring common setup code to reduce duplication.While the changes to use test-specific repositories are positive and consistent throughout the file, there might be an opportunity to refactor some common setup code. For instance, the creation of users, exercises, and participations is repeated in several test methods. Consider extracting these common setup operations into helper methods or using a more extensive
@BeforeEachsetup. This could help reduce code duplication and improve the overall maintainability of the test suite.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (82)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/ComplaintRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/ComplaintResponseRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/ExampleSubmissionRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/ParticipantScoreRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/ResultRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/TutorParticipationRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/repository/CompetencyProgressRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/repository/LearningPathRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/repository/ScienceEventRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/repository/ConversationParticipantRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/repository/PostRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/repository/ReactionRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/repository/conversation/ChannelRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/repository/conversation/ConversationRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/repository/conversation/OneToOneChatRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/core/config/CacheConfiguration.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/core/repository/CourseRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/core/repository/DataExportRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/core/repository/UserRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/core/web/admin/AuditResource.java (1 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exam/repository/ExamLiveEventRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exam/repository/StudentExamRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exercise/repository/ParticipationRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exercise/repository/StudentParticipationRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exercise/repository/SubmissionRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/iris/repository/IrisHestiaSessionRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/iris/repository/IrisMessageRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/iris/service/pyris/PyrisConnectorService.java (1 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/iris/web/open/PublicPyrisStatusUpdateResource.java (1 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/lecture/repository/SlideRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/lti/repository/LtiPlatformConfigurationRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/modeling/repository/ModelingSubmissionRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/programming/repository/BuildJobRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/programming/repository/ProgrammingExerciseRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/programming/repository/ProgrammingExerciseStudentParticipationRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/programming/repository/ProgrammingExerciseTestCaseRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/quiz/repository/QuizExerciseRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/quiz/repository/QuizSubmissionRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/text/repository/TextSubmissionRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/tutorialgroup/repository/TutorialGroupRegistrationRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/tutorialgroup/repository/TutorialGroupRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/tutorialgroup/repository/TutorialGroupScheduleRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/AssessmentComplaintIntegrationTest.java (3 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/AssessmentTeamComplaintIntegrationTest.java (2 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/BonusIntegrationTest.java (2 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ComplaintResponseIntegrationTest.java (25 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ExampleSubmissionIntegrationTest.java (11 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ExerciseScoresChartIntegrationTest.java (2 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/FeedbackTest.java (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/GradeStepIntegrationTest.java (3 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/GradingScaleIntegrationTest.java (2 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/LongFeedbackResourceIntegrationTest.java (2 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ParticipantScoreIntegrationTest.java (3 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/RatingResourceIntegrationTest.java (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ResultListenerIntegrationTest.java (6 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ResultServiceIntegrationTest.java (7 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ResultTest.java (3 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorEffortIntegrationTest.java (2 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorLeaderboardServiceIntegrationTest.java (2 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorParticipationIntegrationTest.java (2 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorParticipationResourceIntegrationTest.java (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/ComplaintResponseServiceTest.java (3 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/CourseScoreCalculationServiceTest.java (3 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/FeedbackServiceTest.java (2 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/GradingScaleServiceTest.java (2 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/ResultServiceTest.java (3 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/ComplaintResponseTestRepository.java (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/ExampleSubmissionTestRepository.java (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/ResultTestRepository.java (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/TutorParticipationTestRepository.java (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/BonusFactory.java (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/ComplaintUtilService.java (7 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/GradingCriterionUtil.java (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/GradingScaleFactory.java (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/GradingScaleUtilService.java (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/StudentScoreUtilService.java (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/AbstractAthenaTest.java (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/AthenaExerciseIntegrationTest.java (3 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/AthenaResourceIntegrationTest.java (3 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/service/connectors/AthenaFeedbackSendingServiceTest.java (3 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/service/connectors/AthenaFeedbackSuggestionsServiceTest.java (2 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/service/connectors/AthenaHealthIndicatorTest.java (2 hunks)
⛔ Files not processed due to max files limit (21)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/service/connectors/AthenaRepositoryExportServiceTest.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/service/connectors/AthenaSubmissionSelectionServiceTest.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/service/connectors/AthenaSubmissionSendingServiceTest.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/competency/AbstractCompetencyPrerequisiteIntegrationTest.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/competency/CompetencyIntegrationTest.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/competency/CompetencyJolIntegrationTest.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/competency/CourseCompetencyIntegrationTest.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/competency/PrerequisiteIntegrationTest.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/competency/StandardizedCompetencyIntegrationTest.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/competency/util/CompetencyProgressUtilService.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/competency/util/CompetencyUtilService.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/competency/util/PrerequisiteUtilService.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/competency/util/StandardizedCompetencyUtilService.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/learningpath/LearningPathIntegrationTest.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/learningpath/util/LearningPathUtilService.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/science/ScienceIntegrationTest.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/science/ScienceSettingsIntegrationTest.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/science/util/ScienceUtilService.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/service/LearningObjectServiceTest.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/service/LearningPathServiceTest.java
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/test_repository/CompetencyProgressTestRepository.java
💤 Files not reviewed due to no reviewable changes (39)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/ComplaintRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/ComplaintResponseRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/ExampleSubmissionRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/ParticipantScoreRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/ResultRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/TutorParticipationRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/repository/CompetencyProgressRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/repository/LearningPathRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/atlas/repository/ScienceEventRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/repository/ConversationParticipantRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/repository/PostRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/repository/ReactionRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/repository/conversation/ChannelRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/repository/conversation/ConversationRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/repository/conversation/OneToOneChatRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/core/config/CacheConfiguration.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/core/repository/CourseRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/core/repository/DataExportRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/core/repository/UserRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exam/repository/ExamLiveEventRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exam/repository/StudentExamRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exercise/repository/ParticipationRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exercise/repository/StudentParticipationRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exercise/repository/SubmissionRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/iris/repository/IrisHestiaSessionRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/iris/repository/IrisMessageRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/lecture/repository/SlideRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/lti/repository/LtiPlatformConfigurationRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/modeling/repository/ModelingSubmissionRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/programming/repository/BuildJobRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/programming/repository/ProgrammingExerciseRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/programming/repository/ProgrammingExerciseStudentParticipationRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/programming/repository/ProgrammingExerciseTestCaseRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/quiz/repository/QuizExerciseRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/quiz/repository/QuizSubmissionRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/text/repository/TextSubmissionRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/tutorialgroup/repository/TutorialGroupRegistrationRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/tutorialgroup/repository/TutorialGroupRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/tutorialgroup/repository/TutorialGroupScheduleRepository.java
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (43)
src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/core/web/admin/AuditResource.java (1)
Pattern
src/main/java/**/*.java: naming:CamelCase; principles:{single_responsibility,small_methods,no_duplication}; db:{perf_queries,datetime_not_timestamp}; rest:{stateless,singleton,delegate_logic,http_only,minimal_dtos}; dtos:{java_records,no_entities,min_data,single_resp}; di:constructor_injection; kiss:simple_code; file_handling:os_indep_paths; practices:{least_access,avoid_transactions,code_reuse,static_member_ref,prefer_primitives}; sql:{param_annotation,uppercase,avoid_subqueries};java:avoid_star_importssrc/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/iris/service/pyris/PyrisConnectorService.java (1)
Pattern
src/main/java/**/*.java: naming:CamelCase; principles:{single_responsibility,small_methods,no_duplication}; db:{perf_queries,datetime_not_timestamp}; rest:{stateless,singleton,delegate_logic,http_only,minimal_dtos}; dtos:{java_records,no_entities,min_data,single_resp}; di:constructor_injection; kiss:simple_code; file_handling:os_indep_paths; practices:{least_access,avoid_transactions,code_reuse,static_member_ref,prefer_primitives}; sql:{param_annotation,uppercase,avoid_subqueries};java:avoid_star_importssrc/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/iris/web/open/PublicPyrisStatusUpdateResource.java (1)
Pattern
src/main/java/**/*.java: naming:CamelCase; principles:{single_responsibility,small_methods,no_duplication}; db:{perf_queries,datetime_not_timestamp}; rest:{stateless,singleton,delegate_logic,http_only,minimal_dtos}; dtos:{java_records,no_entities,min_data,single_resp}; di:constructor_injection; kiss:simple_code; file_handling:os_indep_paths; practices:{least_access,avoid_transactions,code_reuse,static_member_ref,prefer_primitives}; sql:{param_annotation,uppercase,avoid_subqueries};java:avoid_star_importssrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/AssessmentComplaintIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/AssessmentTeamComplaintIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/BonusIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ComplaintResponseIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ExampleSubmissionIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ExerciseScoresChartIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/FeedbackTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/GradeStepIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/GradingScaleIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/LongFeedbackResourceIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ParticipantScoreIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/RatingResourceIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ResultListenerIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ResultServiceIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ResultTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorEffortIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorLeaderboardServiceIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorParticipationIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorParticipationResourceIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/ComplaintResponseServiceTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/CourseScoreCalculationServiceTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/FeedbackServiceTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/GradingScaleServiceTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/ResultServiceTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/ComplaintResponseTestRepository.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/ExampleSubmissionTestRepository.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/ResultTestRepository.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/TutorParticipationTestRepository.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/BonusFactory.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/ComplaintUtilService.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/GradingCriterionUtil.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/GradingScaleFactory.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/GradingScaleUtilService.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/StudentScoreUtilService.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/AbstractAthenaTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/AthenaExerciseIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/AthenaResourceIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/service/connectors/AthenaFeedbackSendingServiceTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/service/connectors/AthenaFeedbackSuggestionsServiceTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/service/connectors/AthenaHealthIndicatorTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: true
📓 Learnings (2)
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ComplaintResponseIntegrationTest.java (1)
Learnt from: julian-christl PR: ls1intum/Artemis#7829 File: src/main/java/de/tum/in/www1/artemis/web/rest/ComplaintResponseResource.java:0-0 Timestamp: 2024-01-08T18:32:55.982Z Learning: The user has fixed the issue regarding the redundant wildcard import in `ComplaintResponseResource.java` by removing it in commit 7e392e0.src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/CourseScoreCalculationServiceTest.java (1)
Learnt from: Strohgelaender PR: ls1intum/Artemis#8030 File: src/main/java/de/tum/in/www1/artemis/service/CourseScoreCalculationService.java:21-49 Timestamp: 2024-02-16T16:56:16.054Z Learning: The project consistently avoids using star-imports in Java files.
🔇 Additional comments (144)
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/ComplaintResponseTestRepository.java (3)
1-9: LGTM: Package declaration and imports are appropriate.The package name
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.test_repositoryaligns with the PR objectives of creating a test repository subpackage. The imports are relevant and necessary for the interface's functionality.
11-12: LGTM: Annotations are correctly applied.The
@Repositoryand@Primaryannotations are appropriately used. The@Primaryannotation ensures that this test repository is prioritized over the production repository in test contexts, which aligns with the PR objectives.
1-16: Verify package rules using ArchUnit.The implementation adheres to most of the specified coding guidelines. However, to ensure full compliance, we should verify if there are any package rules that need to be enforced.
Run the following script to check for existing ArchUnit tests:
If no relevant ArchUnit tests are found, consider adding tests to enforce package rules for test repositories.
✅ Verification successful
Package rules are already enforced via existing ArchUnit tests. No further action is required.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for existing ArchUnit tests related to package rules # Test: Search for ArchUnit tests. Expect: Files containing ArchUnit package rule tests. rg --type java -g '*Test.java' -i '(archunit|architecturerule).*package'Length of output: 406
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/ExampleSubmissionTestRepository.java (2)
1-9: LGTM: Package declaration and imports are appropriate.The package name correctly includes "test_repository", aligning with the file's purpose. The imports are relevant and necessary for the interface's functionality.
11-13: LGTM: Annotations and interface declaration follow guidelines.The use of
@Repositoryand@Primaryannotations is correct and aligns with the coding guidelines for test repositories. ExtendingExampleSubmissionRepositoryensures that this test repository implements the corresponding production repository, which is a good practice.src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/TutorParticipationTestRepository.java (4)
1-11: LGTM: Package declaration and imports are correct.The package declaration and imports are appropriate for a test repository interface. The necessary Spring annotations, Java utilities, and domain classes are correctly imported.
13-15: LGTM: Interface declaration and annotations are correct.The interface is properly named and extends the correct repository. The use of @repository and @primary annotations is appropriate, ensuring this test repository is prioritized in the Spring context.
17-17: LGTM: Method declaration is clear and follows conventions.The
findByAssessedExercisemethod is well-defined, following Spring Data naming conventions. It appropriately returns a List of TutorParticipation entities for a given Exercise.
19-19: LGTM: Method declaration is clear and follows conventions.The
findAllByAssessedExercise_Coursemethod is well-defined, following Spring Data naming conventions. It appropriately uses the underscore to navigate to the Course property of the assessed Exercise, returning a List of TutorParticipation entities for a given Course.src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/AbstractAthenaTest.java (3)
Line range hint
10-28: LGTM! The rest of the file is consistent with the changes and follows coding guidelines.The unchanged parts of the file remain consistent with the new package structure and base class. Some observations:
- The test class follows the naming convention and appears to be small and specific.
- JUnit 5 features are used (
@BeforeEach,@AfterEach).- The class follows the util service factory pattern by using
@AutowiredforAthenaRequestMockProvider.- There's no direct database access in this abstract test class.
The overall structure and consistency of the file are maintained while accommodating the package restructuring.
1-1: LGTM! Package declaration updated correctly.The package declaration has been updated to
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.athena, which aligns with the PR objectives of restructuring into modules. This change improves the organization of the codebase.To ensure that this change doesn't break any existing imports, please run the following script:
If the script returns any results, those files will need to be updated to use the new package structure.
7-8: LGTM! Import statements updated correctly.The import statements have been updated to reflect the new package structure:
AthenaRequestMockProvideris now imported from thecore.connectorpackage.- A new import for
AbstractSpringIntegrationJenkinsGitlabTesthas been added.These changes are consistent with the PR objectives and the package restructuring.
To ensure that the new base class is used correctly, please run the following script:
This script will confirm that
AbstractAthenaTestcorrectly extendsAbstractSpringIntegrationJenkinsGitlabTest.✅ Verification successful
Verified ✅ AbstractAthenaTest correctly extends AbstractSpringIntegrationJenkinsGitlabTest
The class
AbstractAthenaTestsuccessfully extendsAbstractSpringIntegrationJenkinsGitlabTest, ensuring proper integration with the new base class.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/AbstractAthenaTest.java🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the correct usage of AbstractSpringIntegrationJenkinsGitlabTest # Test: Check if AbstractAthenaTest extends AbstractSpringIntegrationJenkinsGitlabTest ast-grep --lang java --pattern 'class AbstractAthenaTest extends AbstractSpringIntegrationJenkinsGitlabTest'Length of output: 579
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that AbstractAthenaTest extends AbstractSpringIntegrationJenkinsGitlabTest using ripgrep # Search for the class declaration excluding binary and non-UTF-8 files rg 'class AbstractAthenaTest extends AbstractSpringIntegrationJenkinsGitlabTest' --type java --textLength of output: 263
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/service/connectors/AthenaHealthIndicatorTest.java (2)
1-1: Package declaration update looks good.The package declaration change aligns with the restructuring effort mentioned in the PR objectives. The new structure
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.athena.service.connectorsappears more logical, placing 'athena' before 'service'.
10-10: Import statement update is correct.The import statement for AbstractAthenaTest has been properly updated to reflect the new package structure. This change ensures that the correct AbstractAthenaTest class is imported, maintaining consistency with the package restructuring.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/GradingScaleFactory.java (1)
1-1: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)Package change approved
The package change from
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessmenttode.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.utilaligns with the PR objectives of restructuring code into modules. This change improves code organization by placing the utility class in a more appropriate package.Consider adding a private constructor
To prevent instantiation of this utility class, consider adding a private constructor:
private GradingScaleFactory() { throw new UnsupportedOperationException("This is a utility class and cannot be instantiated"); }This follows best practices for utility classes with only static methods.
Verify usage and consider relocation
This class appears to be a utility for creating test data. If it's used in production code as well, consider moving it to the main source directory. If it's only used in tests, consider renaming it to
TestGradingScaleFactoryto indicate its test-specific nature.To verify the usage of this class, run the following script:
Based on the results, we can determine if this class should be relocated or renamed.
✅ Verification successful
Package change approved
The package change from
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessmenttode.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.utilaligns with the PR objectives of restructuring code into modules. This change improves code organization by placing the utility class in a more appropriate package.Add a private constructor
To prevent instantiation of this utility class, ensure a private constructor is present:
private GradingScaleFactory() { throw new UnsupportedOperationException("This is a utility class and cannot be instantiated"); }This follows best practices for utility classes with only static methods.
Rename to
TestGradingScaleFactorySince
GradingScaleFactoryis exclusively used within test files, renaming it toTestGradingScaleFactorywill clarify its purpose:
Pros:
- Enhances code readability by indicating its test-specific role.
- Prevents confusion about its usage in production code.
Cons:
- Requires updating all import statements in test files.
Please proceed with renaming the class to better reflect its usage.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check usage of GradingScaleFactory class # Search for usage in test files echo "Usage in test files:" rg --type java "GradingScaleFactory" src/test # Search for usage in main source files echo "Usage in main source files:" rg --type java "GradingScaleFactory" src/main # Search for other occurrences of GradingScaleFactory echo "Other occurrences:" rg --type java "GradingScaleFactory" --glob '!src/{test,main}/**'Length of output: 3119
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/ResultTestRepository.java (8)
1-13: LGTM: Package declaration and imports are appropriate.The package structure follows the convention for test repositories, and all necessary classes and annotations are correctly imported. The static import for
EntityGraph.EntityGraphType.LOADenhances code readability.
15-17: LGTM: Interface declaration and annotations are correct.The
ResultTestRepositoryinterface is properly defined:
- It extends
ResultRepository, following the correct naming convention for test repositories.- The
@Repositoryannotation is correctly applied for Spring Data repositories.- The
@Primaryannotation ensures this test repository takes precedence in test contexts, aligning with the PR objectives.
19-19: LGTM: Method signature is well-defined.The
findAllByParticipationExerciseIdmethod follows Spring Data JPA naming conventions and has a clear, descriptive parameter name. Returning aSet<Result>is appropriate for collecting unique results.
24-24: LGTM: Method signature is well-defined.The
findDistinctBySubmissionIdmethod follows Spring Data JPA naming conventions. Returning anOptional<Result>is a good practice for potentially absent results, and the parameter name is clear and descriptive.
26-27: LGTM: Method is well-defined with appropriate use of @entitygraph.The
findDistinctWithFeedbackBySubmissionIdmethod is correctly implemented:
- It follows Spring Data JPA naming conventions.
- The
@EntityGraphannotation is used correctly to eagerly fetch feedbacks.- Returning an
Optional<Result>is a good practice for potentially absent results.- The parameter name is clear and descriptive.
29-31: LGTM, but clarification needed on helper methods.The
findFirstWithFeedbacksByParticipationIdOrderByCompletionDateDescElseThrowmethod is well-named, clearly indicating its functionality. However, it relies on two helper methods that are not visible in this file:
getValueElseThrowfindFirstWithFeedbacksTestCasesByParticipationIdOrderByCompletionDateDescCould you please provide more information about these helper methods? Specifically:
- Where are they defined?
- What exceptions do they throw?
- Are they part of a common utility class or interface?
This information would help ensure that the method behaves as expected and follows the project's error handling conventions.
33-48: LGTM: Well-documented method with efficient implementation.The
findFirstWithSubmissionsByParticipationIdOrderByCompletionDateDescmethod is well-implemented and documented:
- The Javadoc clearly explains the method's behavior and return value.
- The implementation avoids in-memory paging, which is good for performance.
- Returning an
Optional<Result>is appropriate for a query that might not find a result.However, the method relies on two helper methods that are not visible in this file:
findFirstByParticipationIdOrderByCompletionDateDescfindResultWithSubmissionsByIdCould you please provide more information about these helper methods? Specifically:
- Where are they defined?
- Are they part of the extended
ResultRepositoryinterface?This information would help ensure that the method behaves as expected and follows the project's conventions.
1-49: Overall assessment: Well-structured test repository with minor clarifications needed.The
ResultTestRepositoryinterface is well-designed and aligns with the PR objectives of restructuring tests into modules. Key points:
- Appropriate use of annotations (@repository, @primary) ensures correct usage in test contexts.
- Query methods follow Spring Data JPA naming conventions and use @entitygraph where necessary for performance optimization.
- Default method implementations provide complex query logic, avoiding in-memory paging.
To improve:
- Consider using @query for the long method name on lines 21-22 to enhance readability.
- Provide clarification on helper methods used in default implementations (lines 29-31 and 41-48).
Once these minor points are addressed, the file will be in excellent shape.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/StudentScoreUtilService.java (3)
1-1: Package declaration change looks good.The package has been updated to
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.util, which better reflects the purpose and location of this utility service. This change aligns with the coding guideline for enforcing package rules.
Line range hint
14-16: Class structure adheres to coding guidelines.The
StudentScoreUtilServiceclass follows the util service factory pattern and uses static mocks for the repository. The methods are small and specific, and there's no direct database access, which aligns with the coding guidelines.
Line range hint
1-59: Overall, the changes and existing code adhere to guidelines.The package declaration change improves the organization of the codebase. The
StudentScoreUtilServiceclass follows the util service factory pattern, uses static mocks, avoids direct database access, and contains small, specific methods with descriptive names. The only suggestion for improvement is to reduce code duplication in thecreateStudentScoremethods.src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/GradingCriterionUtil.java (2)
Line range hint
1-55: Well-structured utility class for testing purposes.The
GradingCriterionUtilclass is well-implemented and follows good practices:
- It correctly implements the utility class pattern with a private constructor.
- The methods use modern Java features like streams and Optional, improving readability and maintainability.
- The class and its methods are well-documented with Javadoc comments.
- Method names are descriptive and follow good naming conventions.
- The class is appropriately placed in the test package, aligning with its purpose.
The implementation adheres to the provided coding guidelines and seems suitable for its testing purposes.
1-1: Package change aligns with restructuring objectives.The package change from
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.exercisetode.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.utilaligns with the PR objectives of restructuring the code into modules. This change improves the organization of the codebase by moving the utility class to a more appropriate package.Let's verify if this package change affects imports in other test files:
✅ Verification successful
Package change correctly reflected in all test file imports.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any references to the old package path in other test files # Search for the old package path in all Java test files rg --type java -g 'src/test/**/*.java' 'de\.tum\.cit\.aet\.artemis\.exercise\.GradingCriterionUtil' # Search for imports of GradingCriterionUtil in all Java test files rg --type java -g 'src/test/**/*.java' 'import.*GradingCriterionUtil'Length of output: 1572
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/FeedbackServiceTest.java (2)
Line range hint
1-15: Adherence to coding guidelines confirmed.The changes made to this file maintain compliance with the provided coding guidelines:
- The test class name remains descriptive.
- Existing tests are small and specific.
- JUnit 5 features are utilized.
- assertThat is used for assertions.
- The class extends AbstractSpringIntegrationIndependentTest, which likely handles context management efficiently.
No further changes are required to meet the guidelines.
15-15: Import statement update is appropriate.The update of the import statement for
AbstractSpringIntegrationIndependentTesttode.tum.cit.aet.artemis.shared.base.AbstractSpringIntegrationIndependentTestis in line with the restructuring efforts. This change improves the organization of shared and base components.To ensure consistency across all test classes, please run the following script to check for any remaining references to the old import:
src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/core/web/admin/AuditResource.java (4)
1-1: LGTM: Package declaration change improves organization.The package change from
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.core.webtode.tum.cit.aet.artemis.core.web.adminaligns with the single responsibility principle by grouping admin-related resources together. This change enhances code organization and maintainability.
Line range hint
33-43: LGTM: Class structure and constructor follow best practices.The
AuditResourceclass:
- Uses appropriate annotations for a REST controller.
- Implements constructor injection for
AuditEventService, adhering to dependency injection best practices.- Uses the
@Profileannotation for conditional bean creation, which is a good practice for managing different deployment environments.
Line range hint
50-56: LGTM:getAllmethod implements pagination and access control correctly.The
getAllmethod:
- Uses appropriate annotations for GET mapping and admin access control.
- Implements pagination correctly, enhancing performance for large datasets.
- Returns a well-structured
ResponseEntitywith pagination headers, adhering to RESTful best practices.
Line range hint
1-93: Overall, well-structured and follows best practices.The
AuditResourceclass demonstrates good adherence to RESTful principles, proper use of annotations, and follows most of the specified coding guidelines. Key strengths include:
- Appropriate use of dependency injection.
- Correct implementation of pagination.
- Proper access control with
@EnforceAdminannotations.- Use of
ResponseEntityfor flexible HTTP responses.The suggested improvements (refactoring date handling and simplifying path variable) are minor and do not detract from the overall quality of the implementation.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/FeedbackTest.java (11)
1-1: Package change aligns with module restructuring.The package declaration has been updated from
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.domaintode.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment. This change is consistent with the PR objectives of restructuring the code into modules and moving test code to align with the new production code structure.
Line range hint
13-21: LGTM: Test method follows best practices.The
setTruncatedFeedbackDetailTexttest method adheres to the coding guidelines:
- Descriptive name
- Uses
assertThatfor assertions- Small and specific test
- Uses fixed data for testing
The test effectively verifies the truncation behavior of the
Feedbackclass.
Line range hint
23-30: LGTM: Test method handles null input correctly.The
setTruncatedFeedbackDetailTextNulltest method follows the coding guidelines:
- Descriptive name
- Uses
assertThatfor assertions- Small and specific test
- Tests an important edge case (null input)
This test ensures that the
Feedbackclass handles null input appropriately.
Line range hint
32-40: LGTM: Test method verifies short input handling.The
setShortDetailTexttest method adheres to the coding guidelines:
- Descriptive name
- Uses
assertThatfor assertions- Small and specific test
- Tests a valid use case with a short input
This test ensures that the
Feedbackclass correctly handles short detail text inputs.
Line range hint
42-50: LGTM: Test method handles null input for setDetailText.The
setNullDetailTexttest method follows the coding guidelines:
- Descriptive name
- Uses
assertThatfor assertions- Small and specific test
- Tests an important edge case (null input) for setDetailText
This test ensures that the
Feedbackclass handles null input appropriately when setting the detail text.
Line range hint
52-65: LGTM: Test method verifies long input handling.The
setLongDetailTexttest method adheres to the coding guidelines:
- Descriptive name
- Uses
assertThatfor assertions- Small and specific test
- Tests an important case (long input exceeding the max length)
This test ensures that the
Feedbackclass correctly handles long detail text inputs, including the creation of aLongFeedbackTextobject when necessary.
Line range hint
67-80: LGTM: Test method handles input between soft max and true max length.The
setDetailTextBetweenSoftMaxLengthAndTrueMaxtest method follows the coding guidelines:
- Descriptive name
- Uses
assertThatfor assertions- Small and specific test
- Tests an important edge case (input between soft max and true max length)
This test ensures that the
Feedbackclass correctly handles detail text inputs that fall between the soft maximum length and the true maximum length.
Line range hint
82-90: LGTM: Test method verifies trim marker for long texts.The
detailTextTrimMarkertest method adheres to the coding guidelines:
- Descriptive name
- Uses
assertThatfor assertions- Small and specific test
- Tests an important feature (presence of trim marker for long texts)
This test ensures that the
Feedbackclass correctly adds a trim marker (" [...]") to the end of long detail texts when they are truncated.
Line range hint
92-102: LGTM: Test method handles extremely long feedback trimming.The
trimVeryLongLongFeedbacktest method follows the coding guidelines:
- Descriptive name
- Uses
assertThatfor assertions- Small and specific test
- Tests an important edge case (input exceeding the maximum allowed length)
This test ensures that the
Feedbackclass correctly trims very long feedback to the maximum allowed length (Constants.LONG_FEEDBACK_MAX_LENGTH).
Line range hint
104-106: LGTM: Helper method provides consistent test data.The
getTexthelper method is well-designed for test data generation:
- Private method, appropriately scoped for this test class
- Generates strings of specified lengths, useful for various test cases
- Uses a simple and consistent approach (repeating '0' characters)
This method contributes to the readability and maintainability of the test cases.
Line range hint
1-106: Excellent test coverage and adherence to best practices.This test file demonstrates high-quality unit testing for the
Feedbackclass:
- Comprehensive test coverage, including various scenarios and edge cases
- Consistent use of JUnit 5 features
- Small, specific tests with descriptive names
- Appropriate use of
assertThatfor assertions- Well-structured and readable test methods
The test suite effectively verifies the behavior of the
Feedbackclass, particularly its handling of detail text with various lengths and edge cases. This contributes to the overall reliability and maintainability of the codebase.src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorParticipationResourceIntegrationTest.java (2)
15-16: LGTM: Import statements updated correctly.The import statements have been appropriately updated to reflect the use of test repositories and the restructured package for
AbstractSpringIntegrationIndependentTest. These changes align well with the PR objectives of adjusting tests to the new module structure.Also applies to: 20-21
28-28: LGTM: Repository fields updated to use test repositories.The change from production repositories to test repositories (
TutorParticipationTestRepositoryandExampleSubmissionTestRepository) aligns well with the coding guideline to avoid direct DB access in tests. This modification enhances the separation between test and production code, potentially improving test isolation and performance.Also applies to: 31-31
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/LongFeedbackResourceIntegrationTest.java (2)
20-20: LGTM: Class now extends AbstractSpringIntegrationIndependentTest.This change aligns with the coding guideline to use a util service factory pattern and may help in minimizing context restarts. It's a good step towards standardizing the testing approach across the project.
Line range hint
22-108: LGTM: Existing code complies with coding guidelines.The unchanged parts of the file adhere to the provided coding guidelines:
- Test methods have descriptive names and are small and specific.
- AssertJ's
assertThatis used for assertions.- Fixed data is used in tests.
- JUnit 5 features like
@BeforeEachare utilized.- Direct database access is avoided, with utility services being used instead.
These practices contribute to maintainable and efficient tests.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorLeaderboardServiceIntegrationTest.java (1)
56-56: Approved: Good use of test-specific repository.The change from
userRepository.save(tutor)touserTestRepository.save(tutor)is a positive improvement. It aligns with the coding guideline to avoid direct database access in tests and helps isolate test data from production data.Benefits of this change:
- Improved test isolation
- Reduced risk of interfering with production data
- Better adherence to testing best practices
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/service/connectors/AthenaFeedbackSuggestionsServiceTest.java (6)
1-1: Package declaration update looks good.The package restructuring aligns with the PR objectives of organizing the code into modules. The new package structure
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.athena.service.connectorsappears more logical and consistent.
3-4: Import statement updates for AthenaRequestMockProvider are appropriate.The relocation of
AthenaRequestMockProvidertode.tum.cit.aet.artemis.core.connectoraligns with the restructuring efforts. This change suggests an improved organization of shared components, which is beneficial for maintainability.
16-19: Import updates for AbstractAthenaTest and DTOs are consistent with restructuring.The updated import statements for
AbstractAthenaTest,ProgrammingFeedbackDTO, andTextFeedbackDTOreflect the new package structure, which includes 'athena' in the path. This change enhances the clarity of the module organization.
25-25: Import update for ProgrammingExerciseUtilService is appropriate.The relocation of
ProgrammingExerciseUtilServicetode.tum.cit.aet.artemis.programming.utilaligns with the modular restructuring effort. This change improves the organization of programming-specific utilities.
28-28: Import update for TextExerciseUtilService is consistent and appropriate.The updated import path for
TextExerciseUtilServicetode.tum.cit.aet.artemis.text.utilmirrors the structure used for programming utilities. This change contributes to a more modular and organized codebase.
Line range hint
1-28: Overall package restructuring and import updates look good.The changes in this file are limited to package restructuring and import updates, which align well with the PR objectives of organizing the code into modules. The new package structure appears more logical and modular. It's positive to note that the actual test methods and logic remain unchanged, preserving the integrity of the tests.
Some points to consider:
- Ensure that these changes are consistently applied across the entire codebase to maintain uniformity.
- Update any documentation or build scripts that might reference the old package structure.
- Verify that the new package structure doesn't introduce any unexpected side effects in terms of visibility or access.
To ensure consistency across the codebase, run the following script:
✅ Verification successful
Package restructuring and import updates are consistent throughout the codebase.
All old package references have been removed, and the new package structure is used consistently across relevant files. No mismatched import statements were found, ensuring the integrity of the codebase post-refactoring.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify consistent package structure changes across the codebase # Check for any remaining references to the old package structure echo "Checking for old package references:" rg -i "de\.tum\.cit\.aet\.artemis\.service\.connectors\.athena" src/ # Verify the new package structure is used consistently echo "Verifying new package structure usage:" rg -i "de\.tum\.cit\.aet\.artemis\.athena\.service\.connectors" src/ # Check for any mismatched import statements echo "Checking for mismatched import statements:" rg -i "import.*de\.tum\.cit\.aet\.artemis\.(service\.connectors\.athena|athena\.service\.connectors)" src/Length of output: 1473
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorEffortIntegrationTest.java (4)
21-22: LGTM: Test repository imports added.The change from production repositories to test repositories aligns with the coding guideline to avoid direct database access in tests. This is a good practice for integration tests, as it allows for better control over the test data and reduces dependencies on the production database.
Also applies to: 25-26
60-60: LGTM: Updated to use test repository method.The change to use
textSubmissionTestRepository.findByParticipation_ExerciseIdAndSubmittedIsTrue()is consistent with the switch to test repositories. The method name is more specific, which improves readability and clarity of the test setup.
63-63: LGTM: Updated to use userTestRepository.The change to use
userTestRepository.save(instructor)is consistent with the overall approach of using test repositories. This ensures that the test data for the instructor user is properly isolated from the production database, which is a good practice for integration tests.
Line range hint
1-150: Overall assessment: Changes improve test isolation and are ready for merge with minor suggestions.The changes in this file consistently move towards using test repositories, which is a good practice for integration tests. This improves test isolation and reduces dependencies on the production database. The only suggestion is to ensure consistent naming for the test repository fields.
Key points:
- Test repository imports have been added correctly.
- Repository fields have been updated to use test repositories.
- The
initTestCasemethod has been updated to use the new test repository methods.- The instructor user is now saved using the test repository.
These changes align well with the provided coding guidelines, particularly in avoiding direct database access in tests. After addressing the minor naming consistency suggestion, this file should be ready for merge.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ResultTest.java (5)
40-40: LGTM: Correct use of test repository.The change from
ResultRepositorytoResultTestRepositoryis consistent with the PR objective of using test repositories in tests. The@Autowiredannotation is correctly used for dependency injection.
Line range hint
68-185: LGTM: Test methods adhere to coding guidelines.The test methods in this file follow the provided coding guidelines:
- Descriptive test names are used (e.g.,
evaluateFeedback_totalScoreGreaterMaxScore).- Tests are small and specific.
- AssertJ's
assertThat()is consistently used for assertions.- Assertions are specific and meaningful.
The lack of changes to test logic helps maintain existing test coverage.
Line range hint
1-185: LGTM: Changes align with PR objectives and maintain test integrity.The modifications to
ResultTest.javasuccessfully achieve the following:
- Package restructuring from
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.domaintode.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.- Replacement of
ResultRepositorywithResultTestRepository, aligning with the goal of using test repositories in tests.- Updated import statements reflecting the new package structure.
These changes are consistent with the PR objectives of restructuring the code into modules and adjusting server tests accordingly. The test methods remain unchanged, maintaining existing test coverage and adhering to the provided coding guidelines.
Line range hint
72-74: LGTM: Appropriate use of ResultTestRepository methods.The use of
resultRepository.calculateTotalPoints()andresultRepository.constrainToRange()aligns with the change toResultTestRepository. This supports the separation of test and production code.To ensure the correctness of these methods, let's verify their implementations:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify ResultTestRepository method implementations # Test: Check for calculateTotalPoints and constrainToRange methods in ResultTestRepository rg --type java -g 'src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/ResultTestRepository.java' -A 10 'calculateTotalPoints|constrainToRange'Also applies to: 86-88, 103-105
Line range hint
1-26: LGTM: Package and import changes align with restructuring objectives.The package declaration and import changes are consistent with the PR's objective of restructuring the code into modules. The use of
ResultTestRepositoryinstead ofResultRepositoryaligns with the goal of using test repositories in tests.To ensure consistency across the codebase, let's verify that other test files in this package use similar import structures:
✅ Verification successful
LGTM: Import statements are consistent across all assessment test files.
All import changes in
ResultTest.javaalign with the standardized import structure observed in other test files within thede/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessmentpackage.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify consistent import structure in test files # Test: Check for similar import patterns in other test files rg --type java -g 'src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/*.java' -A 20 '^package'Length of output: 155
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify consistent import statements in all assessment test files # Test: Extract and compare import statements across test files in the assessment package # Find all Java test files in the assessment package fd --type f --extension java 'src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/' | while read -r file; do echo "Imports in $file:" rg '^import ' "$file" echo "" doneLength of output: 592
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify consistent import statements in all assessment test files # Test: Extract and compare import statements across test files in the assessment package # Find all Java test files in the assessment package using the corrected fd pattern fd . 'src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/' --type f --extension java | while read -r file; do echo "Imports in $file:" rg '^import ' "$file" echo "" doneLength of output: 55872
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ExerciseScoresChartIntegrationTest.java (4)
80-80: LGTM: Consistent use of test repository for tutor retrieval.The change to
userTestRepositoryfor fetching tutor1 is consistent with the previous change and aligns with the PR objectives.
Line range hint
1-146: Overall assessment: Changes align with PR objectives and coding guidelines.The modifications in this test file successfully implement the transition to using test repositories and align with the restructuring into modules. The test naming, size, and structure adhere to the provided coding guidelines. The use of
assertThatfor assertions and the overall organization of the test class are commendable.To further improve the test:
- Consider implementing the suggested refactoring for user retrieval to enhance code maintainability.
- Ensure that the
ParticipantScoreScheduleService.DEFAULT_WAITING_TIME_FOR_SCHEDULED_TASKSmodification in@BeforeEachand@AfterEachmethods is necessary and doesn't affect other tests.- Verify that the test coverage is adequate, especially for the newly introduced utility services.
79-79: LGTM: Switched to test repository for user retrieval.The change from
userRepositorytouserTestRepositoryaligns with the PR objectives of using test repositories in tests. This helps in isolating test data from production data.To ensure consistency, please run the following script to check if all user retrievals in this test class use the test repository:
#!/bin/bash # Verify consistent use of userTestRepository in the test file rg --type java -e "userRepository" -e "userTestRepository" src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ExerciseScoresChartIntegrationTest.java
27-30: LGTM: Import changes reflect updated dependencies.The new imports for
ParticipationUtilServiceandTeamUtilService, along with the updated import forAbstractSpringIntegrationIndependentTest, align with the PR objectives of restructuring into modules.To ensure these new services are properly utilized, please run the following script:
✅ Verification successful
Follow-up Action Required:
Please run the following script to verify the usage of
ParticipationUtilServiceandTeamUtilServicein the test file:
Verified: New utility services are properly utilized in the test file.
The usage of
ParticipationUtilServiceandTeamUtilServiceinExerciseScoresChartIntegrationTest.javaconfirms that the new imports are correctly integrated and functional.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify the usage of new utility services in the test file rg --type java -e "participationUtilService" -e "teamUtilService" src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ExerciseScoresChartIntegrationTest.javaLength of output: 708
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify the usage of new utility services in the test file rg --type java -e "participationUtilService" -e "teamUtilService" src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ExerciseScoresChartIntegrationTest.javaLength of output: 1164
src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/iris/web/open/PublicPyrisStatusUpdateResource.java (3)
1-1: LGTM: Package change aligns with the class purpose.The package change to
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.iris.web.openaccurately reflects the public nature of this controller, which is consistent with its namePublicPyrisStatusUpdateResourceand its purpose of providing public access to Pyris status updates.
Line range hint
32-45: LGTM: Class structure and annotations are appropriate.The
PublicPyrisStatusUpdateResourceclass is well-structured:
- It follows the single responsibility principle by focusing on handling Pyris status updates.
- Constructor injection is correctly used for dependency injection.
- The class is properly annotated as a REST controller with the correct request mapping and profile.
These practices contribute to maintainable and clean code.
Line range hint
56-69: LGTM: Method implementation is secure and follows best practices.The
setStatusOfJobmethod:
- Correctly uses custom token-based authentication.
- Properly validates the run ID to ensure consistency between the URL and request body.
- Delegates the status update to the appropriate service.
- Uses proper exception handling for potential conflicts.
- Follows RESTful principles with appropriate HTTP status codes.
These practices contribute to a secure and well-structured endpoint.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/ComplaintUtilService.java (4)
55-57: LGTM! Consistent use of test repository.The change from
resultRepositorytoresultTestRepositoryis consistent with the overall switch to test repositories. The method's functionality remains intact, which is good.
98-100: LGTM! Consistent use of test repository.The change from
resultRepositorytoresultTestRepositoryis consistent with the overall switch to test repositories. The method's functionality remains intact, which is good.
115-117: LGTM! Consistent use of test repository across methods.The changes in
addComplaintToSubmissionandaddTeamComplaintsmethods fromresultRepositorytoresultTestRepositoryare consistent with the overall switch to test repositories. The methods' functionality remains intact, which is good.Also applies to: 132-134
Line range hint
1-156: Overall, the changes look good and align with the PR objectives.The
ComplaintUtilServicehas been successfully updated to use test repositories instead of production repositories. This change is consistent with the PR's goal of restructuring the code into modules and separating test code from production code. The functionality of the service remains intact, which is crucial.Here's a summary of the changes and their impact:
- The package has been updated to include the "util" subpackage, improving organization.
- Imports have been updated to use test repositories where appropriate.
- Field injections and method calls have been consistently updated to use test repositories.
These changes should improve the isolation of test code and make the overall structure of the project clearer. The service is now better suited for use in integration tests without interfering with production repositories.
To further improve the code quality, consider the following suggestions:
- Organize imports alphabetically for better readability.
- Use constructor injection instead of field injection for better testability.
Great job on maintaining the functionality while improving the code structure!
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/AthenaExerciseIntegrationTest.java (2)
54-54: LGTM! Correct use of TestRepository.The change from
ProgrammingExerciseRepositorytoProgrammingExerciseTestRepositoryis correct and aligns with the PR objectives. This ensures that the test is using the appropriate test repository instead of the production repository.
Line range hint
60-231: LGTM! Test methods remain intact.The test methods have not been modified, which is good. This indicates that the restructuring effort has successfully maintained the integrity and functionality of the existing tests while adapting to the new module structure.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/util/GradingScaleUtilService.java (1)
1-1: LGTM: Package declaration change is appropriate.The package change from
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessmenttode.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.utilaligns well with the PR objectives of restructuring the code into modules. This change better reflects the utility nature of theGradingScaleUtilServiceclass and is consistent with its location in the directory structure.src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/service/connectors/AthenaFeedbackSendingServiceTest.java (6)
Line range hint
1-41: LGTM: Package and import changes align with modularization objectives.The package restructuring and import updates correctly reflect the new modular structure of the codebase. The changes are consistent and properly implemented, supporting the PR's goal of adjusting tests to the new production code structure.
55-55: LGTM: Appropriate use of TestRepository.The change from
ProgrammingExerciseRepositorytoProgrammingExerciseTestRepositoryaligns with the PR objective of using test repositories in tests instead of production repositories. This modification enhances the separation between test and production code.
Line range hint
81-126: LGTM: Consistent use of TestRepository in setUp method.The setUp method has been correctly updated to use
ProgrammingExerciseTestRepository, maintaining consistency with the earlier change. The rest of the method remains intact, preserving its original functionality.
Line range hint
150-176: LGTM: Method remains relevant and unchanged.The
testFeedbackSendingTextWithGradingInstructionmethod has not been modified. It continues to serve its purpose in testing the feedback sending functionality with grading instructions, which remains relevant to the overall test suite.
Line range hint
178-224: LGTM: Comprehensive test coverage maintained.The remaining test methods (testFeedbackSendingProgramming, testFeedbackSendingModeling, testEmptyFeedbackNotSending, testSendFeedbackWithFeedbackSuggestionsDisabled) remain unchanged. They continue to provide thorough test coverage for various scenarios, maintaining the robustness of the test suite.
Line range hint
1-224: Overall assessment: Changes successfully implement PR objectives.The modifications to
AthenaFeedbackSendingServiceTest.javaeffectively adapt the test class to the new modular structure of the codebase. Key improvements include:
- Updated package and import statements reflecting the new structure.
- Proper use of
ProgrammingExerciseTestRepositoryinstead of the production repository.- Consistent updates throughout the file, maintaining test integrity.
These changes align well with the PR objectives of restructuring into modules and using test repositories. The overall functionality and coverage of the test suite are preserved, ensuring continued robust testing of the
AthenaFeedbackSendingService.src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ParticipantScoreIntegrationTest.java (3)
25-26: LGTM: Import statements updated to reflect new test structureThe changes to the import statements align well with the restructuring of the test code. The addition of utility services (e.g.,
ExamUtilService,ParticipationUtilService) and test-specific repositories (e.g.,StudentParticipationTestRepository) suggests an improved separation of concerns and a more maintainable test setup.Also applies to: 30-31, 34-37, 41-42, 44-45
73-74: LGTM: Switched to test-specific repositoryThe change from
StudentParticipationRepositorytoStudentParticipationTestRepositoryis a positive step. This switch to a test-specific repository helps isolate test data and prevents potential interference with production data, which is crucial for maintaining reliable integration tests.
Line range hint
1-284: Summary: Improved test structure and isolationThe changes in this file consistently improve the test structure and isolation:
- Adoption of test-specific repositories (e.g.,
StudentParticipationTestRepository,userTestRepository) enhances test data isolation.- Introduction of utility services (e.g.,
ExamUtilService,ParticipationUtilService) improves the separation of concerns and test setup maintainability.- The overall test structure remains clear and comprehensive, covering various scenarios and user roles.
These improvements align well with the goal of restructuring the code into modules and adjusting server tests accordingly. The changes should lead to more reliable and maintainable integration tests.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/ComplaintResponseServiceTest.java (3)
Line range hint
1-30: LGTM: Package and import changes align with restructuring.The package declaration and import modifications are consistent with the PR objectives of restructuring the code into modules. The changes appear necessary and appropriate for the new structure.
40-46: LGTM: Repository types updated to test versions.The change from
UserRepositorytoUserTestRepositoryandResultRepositorytoResultTestRepositoryaligns with the PR objectives. This is a good practice for isolating test data and preventing unintended side effects on production data.
Line range hint
1-232: Overall assessment: Changes align with PR objectives and maintain test quality.The modifications to this file successfully:
- Moved the test class to the appropriate package.
- Updated repository types to test versions.
- Maintained adherence to coding guidelines.
The changes are consistent with the PR objectives of restructuring the code into modules and using test repositories. No major issues or bugs were introduced. The suggested improvements for assert specificity and performance tracking are minor enhancements that can be addressed in future iterations.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorParticipationIntegrationTest.java (1)
69-69: Approved: Use of SubmissionTestRepositoryThe change from
SubmissionRepositorytoSubmissionTestRepositoryfor thesubmissionRepositoryfield is a positive modification. This aligns with the PR objectives of using dedicated test repositories in test classes, which helps in maintaining a clear separation between test and production code.src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/ResultServiceTest.java (3)
Line range hint
1-32: LGTM: Package and import changes align with restructuring objectivesThe package declaration update and import modifications correctly reflect the restructuring of the codebase into modules. The use of test repositories (
ProgrammingExerciseTestRepositoryandProgrammingExerciseStudentParticipationTestRepository) instead of production repositories aligns with the PR objectives and improves test isolation.
39-39: LGTM: Repository variables updated to use test repositoriesThe update of
programmingExerciseRepositoryandparticipationRepositoryto use their respective test repository implementations (ProgrammingExerciseTestRepositoryandProgrammingExerciseStudentParticipationTestRepository) is in line with the PR objectives. This change enhances test isolation and prevents unintended interactions with production data.Also applies to: 48-48
Line range hint
65-265: Verify test effectiveness with new structureWhile the test methods remain largely unchanged, it's crucial to ensure they are still valid and effective with the new modular structure and the use of test repositories. Please verify that:
- All tests are passing with the new structure.
- The tests adequately cover the functionality of the restructured code.
- Any assumptions made in the tests about the structure of the code or data are still valid.
To assist in this verification, you can run the following command to check if all tests in this file are passing:
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/AssessmentTeamComplaintIntegrationTest.java (2)
28-41: LGTM: Import changes align with coding guidelinesThe addition of specific utility services and factories (ComplaintUtilService, ParticipationFactory, ParticipationUtilService, TeamUtilService, SubmissionTestRepository, and ModelingExerciseUtilService) aligns well with the util_service_factory_pattern guideline. This change promotes better separation of concerns and improved testability.
52-52: LGTM: Repository type change improves test isolationChanging the type of submissionRepository from SubmissionRepository to SubmissionTestRepository aligns with the avoid_db_access guideline. This change enhances test isolation by using a test-specific repository instead of the production one, potentially supporting the use of fixed test data as per the fixed_data guideline.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/GradeStepIntegrationTest.java (4)
25-26: LGTM: Import statements updated to reflect new package structureThe changes in import statements for
ExamUtilService,ParticipationUtilService, andAbstractSpringIntegrationIndependentTestalign with the PR objectives of adjusting tests to the new module structure. This update ensures that the test class correctly references the relocated utility services and base test class.Also applies to: 30-30
331-331: LGTM: Consistent use of userTestRepositoryThe change from
userRepositorytouserTestRepositoryin this method is consistent with the previous modification. It further reinforces the use of test repositories in test methods, aligning with the PR objectives and improving test isolation.
Line range hint
1-391: Overall: Changes align with PR objectives and improve test isolationThe modifications in this file consistently reflect the PR objectives of adjusting tests to the new module structure and using test repositories instead of production repositories. These changes improve test isolation and maintain the integrity of the test suite. The updated import statements and consistent use of
userTestRepositorydemonstrate a thorough approach to the restructuring effort.Some suggestions for further improvement:
- Consider adding a comment explaining the reason for using
userTestRepositoryto help future developers understand the rationale behind this choice.- Ensure that all other test classes in the project follow the same pattern of using test repositories where applicable.
284-284: LGTM: Switched to userTestRepository for improved test isolationThe change from
userRepositorytouserTestRepositoryaligns with the PR objectives of using test repositories instead of production repositories in tests. This improves test isolation and prevents potential side effects on production data.To ensure consistency across the codebase, let's verify that all test classes are using the appropriate test repositories:
✅ Verification successful
Verified: All test classes correctly use
UserTestRepositoryThe shell script results confirm that all instances of
userRepositorywithin test files appropriately referenceUserTestRepository. This ensures enhanced test isolation and prevents any potential side effects on production data.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any remaining uses of userRepository in test files rg --type java -g 'src/test/**/*.java' 'userRepository' -C 3Length of output: 138972
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/CourseScoreCalculationServiceTest.java (3)
1-1: Package declaration updated appropriatelyThe package declaration has been updated to
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.service, which better reflects the specific context of the test class. This change aligns with the restructuring effort mentioned in the PR objectives.
52-52: Appropriate use of test repositoriesThe change from production repositories to test repositories (
StudentParticipationTestRepositoryandResultTestRepository) is in line with the PR objectives. This modification enhances test isolation and allows for more controlled test scenarios.Also applies to: 58-58
Line range hint
44-371: Overall structure and test methods remain intactThe changes to this test class are primarily focused on package reorganization and dependency updates. The core structure of the test class and the individual test methods remain largely unchanged, which is good for maintaining the existing test coverage.
However, please ensure that:
- The
@Primaryannotation is correctly applied to the test repository classes as mentioned in the PR objectives.- All test methods still function as expected with the new test repository implementations.
- The disabled test
AnswerMessageIntegrationTest#testCreateAnswerInExamChannelmentioned in the PR objectives is addressed in the appropriate test class.✅ Verification successful
@primary annotations correctly applied in test repository classes
All relevant
TestRepositoryclasses have the@Primaryannotation as required. Verified that the annotations are present and correctly implemented across the necessary classes.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify the presence of @Primary annotation in test repository classes echo "Checking for @Primary annotation in test repository classes:" rg --type java "@Primary.*class.*TestRepository" src/test/javaLength of output: 195
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for @Primary annotations in all test repository classes echo "Searching for @Primary annotations in test repository classes:" rg --type java "@Primary" src/test/java | rg "TestRepository"Length of output: 3924
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/GradingScaleServiceTest.java (3)
Line range hint
1-31: Package and import changes look good.The package declaration and import statements have been updated to reflect the new module structure. This aligns with the PR objective of adjusting server tests to the restructuring effort.
Line range hint
33-57: Class structure and field declarations are appropriate.The test class extends AbstractSpringIntegrationIndependentTest and uses @Autowired for dependency injection, which is consistent with Spring best practices. The private fields for test data setup promote test isolation and readability.
Line range hint
1-437: Overall, the GradingScaleServiceTest is well-structured and appropriately updated.The test class has been successfully adapted to the new module structure, maintaining good testing practices and largely complying with the provided coding guidelines. The suggested improvements are minor and focus on enhancing readability and maintainability. Great job on maintaining test quality during the restructuring process!
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/athena/AthenaResourceIntegrationTest.java (3)
1-1: LGTM: Package declaration updated correctly.The package declaration has been updated to
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.athena, which aligns with the restructuring effort mentioned in the PR objectives. This change improves the organization of test code to mirror the production code structure.
68-80: LGTM: Repository fields updated to use test repositories.The class fields for repositories have been correctly updated to use test repositories (e.g.,
TextSubmissionTestRepository,ProgrammingSubmissionTestRepository, etc.). This change is consistent with the import updates and aligns with the restructuring effort.
Line range hint
3-49: LGTM: Import statements updated correctly.The import statements have been updated to use test repositories instead of production repositories, which is a good practice for isolating test data. The change to
core.connectoris consistent with the overall restructuring effort.To ensure all imports are necessary, run the following script:
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/BonusIntegrationTest.java (4)
Line range hint
1-37: Package and import changes look good.The package restructuring and import modifications align with the PR objectives of adjusting server tests to the new production code structure. These changes should improve code organization and maintainability.
Line range hint
39-396: Test methods are well-structured and comprehensive.The test methods follow JUnit 5 conventions, use descriptive names, and employ AssertJ's
assertThat()for assertions. They cover various scenarios for bonus calculations and error cases, which is good for maintaining test coverage during the restructuring process.
Line range hint
398-421: Helper methods for creating grading scales are well-designed.The methods
createBonusToGradingScaleandcreateSourceGradingScaleWithGradeStepsForGradesBonusStrategyencapsulate the logic for creating different types of grading scales. This approach promotes code reuse and improves readability in the test cases.
Line range hint
423-435: ThecalculateFinalGradeAtServermethod is comprehensive and well-implemented.This method effectively tests the bonus calculation logic by using the REST API and asserting the results. It covers various scenarios and edge cases, which is crucial for ensuring the correctness of the bonus calculation feature during and after the restructuring process.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/GradingScaleIntegrationTest.java (1)
65-65: Approve change to use test repository in init method.The change from
userRepositorytouserTestRepositoryfor saving the instructor user is a good practice. It ensures that test data is isolated from production data and aligns with the PR objective of restructuring test code.Please verify if similar changes are needed in other parts of this test class or in other test classes. Run the following script to check for any remaining usage of
userRepositoryin test files:#!/bin/bash # Check for usage of userRepository in test files echo "Checking for usage of userRepository in test files:" rg --type java "userRepository" src/test/javasrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ResultListenerIntegrationTest.java (4)
Line range hint
1-42: LGTM: Package and import changes align with restructuring goals.The package declaration and import changes correctly reflect the restructuring of the codebase into modules. The shift from production repositories to test repositories in the imports is consistent with the PR objectives.
97-97: LGTM: User retrieval updated to use TestRepository.The change from
userRepositorytouserTestRepositoryis consistent with the PR objective of using test repositories in tests. This modification ensures that test data is used instead of production data, improving test isolation.
105-105: LGTM: Tutor retrieval updated to use TestRepository.The change from
userRepositorytouserTestRepositoryfor tutor retrieval is consistent with the previous modifications and aligns with the PR objective of using test repositories in tests.
409-409: LGTM: Participant retrieval updated to use TestRepository.The changes from
userRepositorytouserTestRepositoryin bothsetupTestScenarioWithOneResultSavedandverifyStructureOfParticipantScoreInDatabasemethods are consistent with the previous modifications and align with the PR objective of using test repositories in tests.Also applies to: 446-446
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ExampleSubmissionIntegrationTest.java (8)
30-41: LGTM: Import statements updated correctlyThe changes in import statements reflect the restructuring of the test code, introducing test-specific repositories and utility services. This aligns well with the PR objectives.
55-58: LGTM: Repository variables updated correctlyThe changes to repository variables are consistent with the shift towards using test-specific repositories. The updated variable names (exampleSubmissionRepository, gradingCriterionRepository) improve naming consistency.
151-156: LGTM: Repository method calls updated correctlyThe changes in the createAndDeleteExampleModelingSubmission method correctly reflect the repository variable renaming. The method logic remains intact, ensuring the test's functionality is preserved.
170-175: LGTM: Repository method calls updated correctlyThe changes in the createAndDeleteExampleModelingSubmissionWithResult method correctly reflect the repository variable renaming. The method logic remains intact, ensuring the test's functionality is preserved.
296-296: LGTM: Repository method call updated correctlyThe change in the createExampleTextAssessmentNotExistentId method correctly reflects the repository variable renaming. The method logic remains intact, ensuring the test's functionality is preserved.
315-315: LGTM: Repository method call updated correctlyThe change in the createExampleTextAssessment_wrongExerciseId method correctly reflects the repository variable renaming. The method logic remains intact, ensuring the test's functionality is preserved.
383-383: LGTM: Repository method call updated correctlyThe change in the testGradingCriteriaAreImported method correctly reflects the repository variable renaming. The method logic remains intact, ensuring the test's functionality is preserved.
Line range hint
1-441: Overall assessment: Changes align with PR objectivesThe modifications in this file consistently reflect the restructuring of test code as outlined in the PR objectives. The primary changes involve:
- Updating import statements to use test-specific repositories and utility services.
- Renaming repository variables for better consistency (e.g., exampleSubmissionRepo to exampleSubmissionRepository).
- Updating all repository method calls to use the new variable names.
These changes improve the overall structure and maintainability of the test code without altering the logic of the test methods. The file now better separates test-specific components from production code, which is a good practice in test organization.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ComplaintResponseIntegrationTest.java (5)
24-24: Excellent use of test-specific repositories!The changes to use
ComplaintResponseTestRepository,SubmissionTestRepository, andUserTestRepositoryinstead of their production counterparts improve test isolation. This practice prevents potential side effects on production data and makes the tests more reliable.Also applies to: 30-30, 32-32, 48-48, 54-54
538-538: Consistent use of test repositoryThe change from
userRepositorytouserTestRepositoryis consistent with the earlier modifications and maintains the improved test isolation throughout the test class.
526-526: Consistent use of test repositoryThe change from
complaintResponseRepositorytocomplaintResponseTestRepositoryin thevalidateThatComplaintIsResolvedmethod is consistent with the earlier modifications and maintains the improved test isolation.
139-139: Consistent application of test repositories throughout the test classThe changes from
complaintResponseRepositorytocomplaintResponseTestRepositoryhave been consistently applied throughout the test methods. This maintains the improved test isolation across all test scenarios.Also applies to: 177-177, 217-217, 226-226, 238-238, 255-255, 267-267, 277-277, 286-286, 289-289, 300-300, 309-309, 318-318, 327-327, 336-336, 347-347, 362-362, 364-364, 373-373, 382-382, 435-435
Line range hint
1-547: Overall improvement in test isolation and reliabilityThe changes in this file consistently replace production repositories with test-specific repositories (
ComplaintResponseTestRepository,SubmissionTestRepository, andUserTestRepository). This refactoring:
- Improves test isolation by preventing potential side effects on production data.
- Enhances the reliability of the tests.
- Follows best practices for integration testing.
The core logic and assertions of the tests remain unchanged, preserving their original intent while improving their implementation.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ResultServiceIntegrationTest.java (7)
37-37: LGTM! Improved test isolation with test-specific repositories.The changes in import statements, particularly the introduction of test-specific repositories (e.g.,
ProgrammingExerciseTestRepository,QuizExerciseTestRepository) and utility services, are a positive improvement. This approach enhances test isolation and provides better control over test data, which is crucial for maintaining reliable and deterministic tests.Also applies to: 43-43, 47-50, 54-54, 59-60, 67-73
87-87: LGTM! Consistent use of test repositories enhances test reliability.The modification of repository field types to use test-specific repositories (e.g.,
ProgrammingExerciseTestRepository,QuizExerciseTestRepository,StudentParticipationTestRepository,SubmissionTestRepository) is a positive change. This approach ensures that tests are using isolated data stores, preventing potential interference with production data and improving the overall reliability and predictability of the test suite.Also applies to: 96-96, 105-105, 108-108, 111-111
572-572: LGTM! Consistent use of test repository for user data.The change from
userRepositorytouserTestRepositoryfor finding a user is consistent with the overall approach of using test-specific repositories. This ensures that the test is using a controlled set of user data, further enhancing the isolation and reliability of the test environment.
645-645: LGTM! Consistent use of test repository for user data in external submission test.The replacement of
userRepositorywithuserTestRepositoryin this method maintains consistency with the overall approach of using test-specific repositories. This change ensures that the test for creating results for external submissions is using isolated user data, contributing to the robustness and reliability of the test suite.
692-692: LGTM! Maintaining consistency with test repositories across all test methods.The replacement of
userRepositorywithuserTestRepositoryin this method demonstrates a consistent approach throughout the test class. This change ensures that the test for getting assessment counts by correction round is also using isolated user data, contributing to the overall integrity and reliability of the test suite.
Line range hint
1-863: LGTM! Good adherence to coding guidelines.The test class demonstrates good adherence to the specified coding guidelines. Notable points include:
- Descriptive test names
- Appropriate test sizes
- Consistent use of AssertJ's assertThat for assertions
- Proper use of JUnit 5 features
- Use of static mocks as per the guidelines
This consistency helps maintain code quality and readability across the test suite.
Line range hint
1-863: LGTM! Overall improvements to test isolation and consistency.The changes made to this test class significantly enhance its quality:
- Consistent use of test-specific repositories across all test methods improves test isolation.
- The modifications align well with best practices for integration testing.
- The changes maintain adherence to the specified coding guidelines.
These improvements contribute to a more reliable, maintainable, and robust test suite. The consistent approach across the entire file is commendable and will likely make future maintenance and extensions easier.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/AssessmentComplaintIntegrationTest.java (5)
31-32: LGTM: Improved test isolation with test-specific repositoriesThe changes in the import statements, particularly the replacement of
ComplaintResponseRepositorywithComplaintResponseTestRepositoryandSubmissionRepositorywithSubmissionTestRepository, indicate a move towards using test-specific repositories. This change is likely to enhance test isolation and provide better control over the test environment.Also applies to: 36-36, 39-39, 43-45, 47-47, 50-50, 52-53, 56-56
63-63: LGTM: Consistent use of test-specific repositoriesThe field declarations for
submissionRepoandcomplaintResponseTestRepositoryhave been updated to use the test-specific repository types. This change is consistent with the modifications in the import statements and further reinforces the use of test-specific repositories throughout the test class.Also applies to: 69-69
425-425: LGTM: Consistent use of test-specific repository for savingThe change from
complaintResponseRepo.save(...)tocomplaintResponseTestRepository.save(...)is consistent with the overall modifications to use test-specific repositories. This change maintains the coherence of the test class.
Line range hint
1-1005: LGTM: Successful migration to test-specific repositoriesThe changes throughout this file consistently implement the use of test-specific repositories (
ComplaintResponseTestRepositoryandSubmissionTestRepository) instead of their production counterparts. This modification is likely to enhance test isolation and provide better control over the test environment. The core test logic and assertions remain unchanged, which suggests that the functionality being tested should remain the same.Key points:
- Import statements have been updated to include the new test repositories.
- Field declarations have been modified to use the test-specific repository types.
- Method calls throughout the tests have been updated to use the new repository methods.
These changes should improve the reliability and maintainability of the tests by reducing dependencies on production repositories.
360-360: LGTM: Updated method call for test-specific repositoryThe change from
complaintResponseRepo.findByComplaint_Id(...)tocomplaintResponseTestRepository.findByComplaintId(...)aligns with the use of the new test-specific repository. This modification is consistent with the earlier changes.To ensure the new method behaves as expected, please run the following verification:
.../java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/ComplaintResponseTestRepository.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
.../java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/ExampleSubmissionTestRepository.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
.../java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/ExampleSubmissionTestRepository.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/test_repository/TutorParticipationTestRepository.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/RatingResourceIntegrationTest.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ParticipantScoreIntegrationTest.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorParticipationIntegrationTest.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/GradingScaleIntegrationTest.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/ResultListenerIntegrationTest.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/communication/AnswerMessageIntegrationTest.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
ole-ve
dismissed stale reviews from cremertim, coderabbitai[bot], and SimonEntholzer
via
b2b58e7
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/ComplaintResponseRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/ResultRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exercise/repository/SubmissionRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/programming/repository/ProgrammingExerciseRepository.java (0 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorEffortIntegrationTest.java (2 hunks)
- src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/CourseScoreCalculationServiceTest.java (3 hunks)
💤 Files not reviewed due to no reviewable changes (4)
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/ComplaintResponseRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/repository/ResultRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/exercise/repository/SubmissionRepository.java
- src/main/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/programming/repository/ProgrammingExerciseRepository.java
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (2)
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorEffortIntegrationTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: truesrc/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/CourseScoreCalculationServiceTest.java (1)
Pattern
src/test/java/**/*.java: test_naming: descriptive; test_size: small_specific; fixed_data: true; junit5_features: true; assert_use: assertThat; assert_specificity: true; archunit_use: enforce_package_rules; db_query_count_tests: track_performance; util_service_factory_pattern: true; avoid_db_access: true; mock_strategy: static_mocks; context_restart_minimize: true
📓 Learnings (1)
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/CourseScoreCalculationServiceTest.java (1)
Learnt from: Strohgelaender PR: ls1intum/Artemis#8030 File: src/main/java/de/tum/in/www1/artemis/service/CourseScoreCalculationService.java:21-49 Timestamp: 2024-02-16T16:56:16.054Z Learning: The project consistently avoids using star-imports in Java files.
🔇 Additional comments (6)
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorEffortIntegrationTest.java (4)
21-22: LGTM: Import statements updated correctly.The import statements have been updated to use the new test repository classes, which aligns with the PR objective of adjusting server tests to the restructured modules. The naming convention for test repositories is consistent, using the "Test" suffix.
Also applies to: 25-26
60-60: LGTM: Test case initialization updated correctly.The
initTestCasemethod has been updated to use the newTextSubmissionTestRepository, which aligns with the PR objective of adjusting server tests to the restructured modules. The method name, although long, is descriptive and follows the Spring Data naming conventions.
63-63: LGTM: User repository updated to test repository.The change from
userRepositorytouserTestRepositoryis consistent with the overall shift to using test repositories in this integration test. This aligns with the PR objectives and maintains consistency with other test repository usage in the file.
Line range hint
1-143: Overall assessment: Changes align with PR objectives.The modifications to
TutorEffortIntegrationTest.javasuccessfully implement the transition to test repositories, which aligns with the PR objective of adjusting server tests to the restructured modules. The existing test logic remains unchanged, maintaining the current test coverage.A minor naming inconsistency was noted for one repository field, but this doesn't impact functionality. Consider addressing this for improved code consistency.
The changes in this file appear to be ready for merging, pending the suggested minor improvement.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/CourseScoreCalculationServiceTest.java (2)
1-1: Package structure change aligns with modular restructuring.The package change from
de.tum.cit.aet.artemis.servicetode.tum.cit.aet.artemis.assessment.serviceappropriately reflects the assessment-specific nature of this service, aligning with the PR's objective of restructuring the code into modules.
52-58: Variable type updates align with test repository usage.The changes from
StudentParticipationRepositorytoStudentParticipationTestRepositoryandResultRepositorytoResultTestRepositoryare consistent with the PR objective of using test repositories in place of production repositories for tests. This separation enhances the distinction between test and production code, promoting better maintainability and reducing potential conflicts.
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/TutorEffortIntegrationTest.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/test/java/de/tum/cit/aet/artemis/assessment/service/CourseScoreCalculationServiceTest.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Checklist
General
Motivation and Context
After restructuring the server (prod) module structure, these changes adjust the test-code structure to the new prod-code structure.
Note: Most of the changes just come from moving files and methods.
Description
In detail, this includes:
test_repositorysubpackage to each module if this module uses a test repositoryAnswerMessageIntegrationTest#testCreateAnswerInExamChannelhas been disabled. This test fails withJsonException No _valueDeserializer assignedbut only if run as part of the whole test suite. The root cause for this issue is unclear.Review Progress
Code Review
Summary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
Chores
AuditResourceclass into a more specific package for better project structure.