refactor: improve cache command implementation #120
Conversation
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request primarily focus on enhancing the cache command within the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Poem
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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅ |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (8)
cmd/cache/cache.go (3)
32-46: Consider adding validation for the server address.While the implementation is solid, consider validating the addr flag value before proceeding with the operations. This could prevent confusing error messages if an invalid URL is provided.
func (o *options) Run(cmd *cobra.Command, args []string) error { + // Validate server address + if _, err := url.Parse(o.addr); err != nil { + return fmt.Errorf("invalid server address %q: %w", o.addr, err) + } + // Initialize dependencies if not injected (for testing) if err := o.initDependencies(); err != nil {
59-68: Consider enhancing the success message.The success message could be more informative by including the server address.
- fmt.Println("Cache cleared successfully") + fmt.Printf("Cache cleared successfully from %s\n", o.addr)
70-79: Consider enhancing the success message for consistency.For consistency with clearCache, consider including the server address in the success message.
- fmt.Println("Graph fully cached") + fmt.Printf("Graph fully cached at %s\n", o.addr)go.mod (1)
Line range hint
3-3: Fix invalid Go version.The specified Go version
1.23.1is not valid. The latest stable version of Go is 1.22.x.Apply this diff to fix the version:
-go 1.23.1 +go 1.22cmd/cache/cache_test.go (4)
31-63: Consider enhancing test assertions and error handling.While the test cases cover the essential scenarios, consider these improvements:
- Use testify/assert for consistent assertion style across the file
- Add test case for invalid address format
- Consider testing with timeout context
Example refactor for the first test case:
t.Run("initializes client when nil", func(t *testing.T) { o := &options{ addr: "http://test-server:8080", } err := o.initDependencies() - if err != nil { - t.Errorf("unexpected error: %v", err) - } - - if o.cacheServiceClient == nil { - t.Error("cacheServiceClient should be initialized") - } + assert.NoError(t, err) + assert.NotNil(t, o.cacheServiceClient, "cacheServiceClient should be initialized") })
133-176: Consider reducing test duplication.The test structure is identical to
TestOptions_clearCache. Consider extracting common test utilities:type cacheTestCase struct { name string mockFn func(*mockCacheServiceClient) wantErr bool } func runCacheTest(t *testing.T, tt cacheTestCase, testFn func(*options) error) { mockClient := &mockCacheServiceClient{} tt.mockFn(mockClient) o := &options{ cacheServiceClient: mockClient, } err := testFn(o) if tt.wantErr { assert.Error(t, err) } else { assert.NoError(t, err) } mockClient.AssertExpectations(t) }
195-263: Consider enhancing context handling in tests.While the test coverage is comprehensive, consider adding test cases for context cancellation and timeouts:
{ name: "context cancellation", clear: false, mockFn: func(m *mockCacheServiceClient) { m.On("Cache", mock.Anything, mock.Anything). Run(func(args mock.Arguments) { // Simulate long-running operation time.Sleep(100 * time.Millisecond) }). Return(&connect.Response[emptypb.Empty]{}, nil) }, wantErr: true, setupCmd: func(cmd *cobra.Command) { ctx, cancel := context.WithCancel(context.Background()) cancel() // Cancel immediately cmd.SetContext(ctx) }, }
1-263: Overall excellent test coverage with minor improvement opportunities.The test file demonstrates high-quality test coverage with:
- Comprehensive test cases covering success and failure scenarios
- Proper use of table-driven tests and mocking
- Clear assertions and error handling
The suggested improvements are minor and don't detract from the overall quality of the tests.
Consider adding integration tests in a separate file to verify the interaction with the actual cache service in a controlled environment.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
go.sumis excluded by!**/*.sum
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
cmd/cache/cache.go(1 hunks)cmd/cache/cache_test.go(1 hunks)cmd/root/root.go(1 hunks)go.mod(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (10)
cmd/root/root.go (2)
36-36: LGTM! Removal of storage dependency aligns with PR objectives.
The change to cache.New() correctly implements the PR's goal of replacing direct storage dependency with a CacheService client.
36-38: Verify architectural consistency with other commands.
While removing the storage dependency from the cache command aligns with using CacheService client, let's verify that this architectural change maintains consistency across the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Architectural pattern is consistent across commands
The codebase shows a clear and consistent architectural pattern:
- Commands that need direct graph access (
leaderboard,ingest,query/custom) use thestoragedependency - Service-oriented commands (
cache,query/getMetadata,query/globsearch) use appropriate service clients instead of direct storage access
The removal of storage dependency from the cache command aligns with this pattern as it uses the CacheService client, similar to how other service-oriented commands are structured.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the architectural patterns across commands
# Expected: Other commands should either consistently use storage or have clear reasons not to
# Check if other commands have similar refactoring in progress
rg -A 5 "type options struct" "cmd/*/*.go"
# Look for CacheService usage patterns
rg -A 5 "CacheService" "cmd/*/*.go"
# Check for any TODO comments about similar refactoring
rg -i "todo.*storage" "cmd/*/*.go"
Length of output: 270
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try with more precise path patterns
# Check command implementations
fd -e go . cmd/
# Then examine the architectural patterns
rg -A 5 "type options struct"
rg -A 5 "CacheService"
rg -i "todo.*storage"
# Look at command initialization patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'func New($$$) *cobra.Command {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 37599
cmd/cache/cache.go (3)
14-22: LGTM! Well-structured type definitions with clear documentation.
The changes align well with the PR objectives by removing the direct storage dependency and introducing the CacheService client. The constant and struct fields are properly documented.
26-29: LGTM! Clear and concise flag configuration.
The command flags are well-defined with appropriate defaults and clear descriptions.
Line range hint 81-93: LGTM! Clean command initialization.
The command initialization is well-structured and aligns perfectly with the PR objectives by removing the storage dependency.
go.mod (1)
38-71: LGTM: New dependencies align with PR objectives.
The added indirect dependencies support:
- Enhanced testing capabilities through Ginkgo and Cupaloy
- Improved validation and error handling through JSON schema validators
- These additions align well with the PR's goals of improving testability and error handling
cmd/cache/cache_test.go (4)
16-29: LGTM! Well-structured mock implementation.
The mock implementation follows best practices with proper use of testify/mock and correctly implements the CacheServiceClient interface.
64-86: LGTM! Comprehensive flag testing.
The test thoroughly verifies flag configuration, default values, and usage strings using clear assertions.
88-131: LGTM! Well-structured table-driven tests for cache clearing.
The test follows best practices with:
- Comprehensive test cases covering both success and failure scenarios
- Proper mock setup and verification
- Clear error handling
178-194: LGTM! Thorough command configuration testing.
The test effectively verifies all essential command properties and flag configurations.
- Replace direct storage dependency with CacheService client - Add proper dependency injection pattern for better testability - Implement comprehensive test coverage with mock client - Add clear documentation for public methods - Improve error handling and messaging Signed-off-by: naveensrinivasan <[email protected]>
naveensrinivasan
force-pushed
the
naveen/cmd/cache-cleanup-other
branch
from
9544eb5 to
71a84ce
Compare
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Tests
Chores