[ECO-4980] Add a script to show spec coverage #93
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@lawrence-forooghian has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 8 minutes and 2 seconds before requesting another review. ⌛ How to resolve this issue?After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit. 🚦 How do rate limits work?CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. WalkthroughThe pull request introduces a new job named Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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 (
|
lawrence-forooghian
force-pushed
the
46-spec-coverage
branch
3 times, most recently
from
5836600 to
6e5faa3
Compare
lawrence-forooghian
changed the title
lawrence-forooghian
changed the title
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 8
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (4)
.github/workflows/check.yaml (1)
41-52: Consider enhancing the spec-coverage job configuration.The basic job structure is correct, but consider these improvements for better reliability and visibility:
- Add timeout configuration to prevent hanging builds
- Implement caching similar to the lint job
- Upload the coverage report as an artifact for later reference
Here's a suggested enhancement:
spec-coverage: runs-on: macos-latest + timeout-minutes: 10 steps: - uses: actions/checkout@v4 # This step can be removed once the runners' default version of Xcode is 16 or above - uses: maxim-lobanov/setup-xcode@v1 with: xcode-version: 16 - name: Spec coverage run: swift run BuildTool spec-coverage + + - name: Upload coverage report + uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4 + with: + name: spec-coverage-report + path: spec-coverage-report.txt + if-no-files-found: errorCONTRIBUTING.md (2)
88-88: Consider enhancing the spec coverage report documentation.While the command is clearly documented, consider adding:
- An example of the report output format
- The location where the report is generated
- Whether the strict comment format requirement (
//with single spaces) could be made more flexible in future versions
Line range hint
65-87: LGTM! Consider clarifying tag selection guidance.The tag documentation is comprehensive and well-structured. To make it even better, consider adding guidance on when to use
@specPartialvs@specOneOf. For example:
- Use
@specOneOfwhen you have a planned set of test cases that together will provide full coverage- Use
@specPartialwhen full coverage isn't achievable yet due to implementation limitationsSources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift (1)
273-277: Simplify optional binding with standard syntaxThe use of the
if letexpression in this context may reduce readability. Consider using standard optional binding for clarity.Simplify the code:
- let comment: String? = if let capture = match.output.5 { - String(capture) - } else { - nil - } + let comment = match.output.5.map { String($0) }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
.github/workflows/check.yaml(2 hunks)AblyChat.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved(2 hunks)CONTRIBUTING.md(1 hunks)Package.resolved(2 hunks)Package.swift(2 hunks)Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift(3 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (9)
AblyChat.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved (2)
2-2: LGTM!
The originHash update is an expected change generated by Swift Package Manager.
58-65: Verify the table dependency details.
The Table package (v1.1.1) has been added for spec coverage reporting. Let's verify some important details about this dependency.
Package.resolved (1)
2-2: LGTM!
The originHash update is expected due to dependency changes.
Package.swift (2)
74-77: LGTM! Dependency correctly configured.
The Table product dependency is properly added to the BuildTool target, maintaining consistent formatting with other dependencies.
34-37: LGTM! Verify the package stability.
The Table package is a good choice for formatting CLI output. The version constraint is reasonable and allows for compatible updates.
Let's verify the package's maintenance status and compatibility:
✅ Verification successful
Package dependency verified and approved
The Table package shows healthy maintenance with recent updates (last updated: Jan 29, 2024) and is compatible with Swift toolchain. The package:
- Is actively maintained
- Has Swift as primary language
- Matches the project's Swift tools version requirements (6.0)
- Has a focused purpose ("CLI tables in Swift")
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check the Table package's recent activity and Swift version compatibility
# Test: Check if the package has recent commits and Swift version compatibility
gh repo view JanGorman/Table --json updatedAt,languages,description
# Test: Look for Swift version specifications in the package
rg -i "swift-tools-version" $(fd -t f "Package.swift" --exec dirname {})
Length of output: 913
.github/workflows/check.yaml (2)
132-132: LGTM!
The spec-coverage job is correctly integrated into the all-checks-completed dependencies, maintaining the workflow's gate-keeping functionality.
41-52: Verify job dependencies for spec-coverage.
Consider whether the spec-coverage job should run after successful SPM checks to ensure the codebase builds correctly before analyzing spec coverage.
Consider adding the following dependency:
spec-coverage:
runs-on: macos-latest
+ needs: check-spm
steps:CONTRIBUTING.md (1)
Line range hint 90-102: LGTM! Well-documented spec untested tag.
The @specUntested tag documentation is excellent:
- Clear format requirements
- Emphasis on sparing usage
- Requirement for explanation
- Good example demonstrating proper usage
This will help track and justify gaps in test coverage, which is valuable for maintaining transparency about test coverage status.
Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift (1)
617-620: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Use Data(contentsOf:) instead of URLSession for local file access
Using URLSession.shared.data(from:) to read local files is unconventional and may introduce unnecessary overhead.
Apply this diff to read the file directly:
- let (data, _) = try await URLSession.shared.data(from: .init(filePath: path))
+ let data = try Data(contentsOf: URL(fileURLWithPath: path))Likely invalid or redundant comment.
What do you mean by "a test"? |
lawrence-forooghian
force-pushed
the
46-spec-coverage
branch
from
6e5faa3 to
ee9be6f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
.github/workflows/check.yaml(2 hunks)AblyChat.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved(2 hunks)CONTRIBUTING.md(1 hunks)Package.resolved(2 hunks)Package.swift(2 hunks)Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift(3 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)
- .github/workflows/check.yaml
- AblyChat.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved
- CONTRIBUTING.md
- Package.swift
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift (5)
Learnt from: lawrence-forooghian
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-swift#93
File: Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift:232-233
Timestamp: 2024-10-31T12:09:46.733Z
Learning: In `Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift`, when using `Regex.firstMatch(in:)` without a throwing transformation, it's acceptable to use `try!` as it won't throw an error.
Learnt from: lawrence-forooghian
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-swift#93
File: Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift:438-439
Timestamp: 2024-10-31T12:09:03.256Z
Learning: In `Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift`, it's acceptable to use `try!` when calling `Table(data:).table()` because the only possible errors are programmer errors, making explicit error handling unnecessary.
Learnt from: lawrence-forooghian
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-swift#93
File: Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift:529-530
Timestamp: 2024-10-31T12:08:23.040Z
Learning: In Swift code, when encountering programmer errors, it's acceptable to use `preconditionFailure` instead of throwing an error.
Learnt from: lawrence-forooghian
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-swift#93
File: Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift:295-296
Timestamp: 2024-10-31T12:09:18.088Z
Learning: In this codebase, programmer errors are not handled by throwing `Error`s. Instead, `preconditionFailure` or similar methods are used.
Learnt from: lawrence-forooghian
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-swift#93
File: Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift:551-552
Timestamp: 2024-10-31T12:08:14.757Z
Learning: The codebase uses a throwing equivalent of `String(data:encoding:)`, so optional unwrapping suggestions are not needed in such cases.
🔇 Additional comments (3)
Package.resolved (2)
58-65: LGTM: Table dependency addition looks good.
The dependency is properly configured with pinned version 1.1.1. While the package is older, it appears to meet the current needs for formatting spec coverage reports.
2-2: LGTM: Expected hash update.
The originHash update is a normal consequence of adding the new dependency.
Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift (1)
202-625: Overall Implementation Looks Good
The SpecCoverage command is well-structured, and the implementation aligns with the objectives of generating a specification coverage report. The use of Swift language features, asynchronous programming, and error handling follows best practices.
lawrence-forooghian
force-pushed
the
46-spec-coverage
branch
from
ee9be6f to
4079c69
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift (2)
250-298: Consider improving regex readabilityThe regex pattern for parsing conformance tags is quite complex. Consider breaking it down into named capture groups or adding detailed comments explaining each part of the pattern.
- let conformanceTagSourceLineRegex = /^\s+\/\/ @spec(OneOf|Partial|Untested)?(?:\((\d)?\/(\d)?\))? (.*?)(?: - (.*))?$/ + // Matches conformance tags in the format: @spec[Type][(n/m)] ID [- comment] + let conformanceTagSourceLineRegex = / + ^\s+\/\/\s+ # Leading whitespace and comment + @spec # Tag start + (OneOf|Partial|Untested)? # Optional tag type + (?:\((\d)?\/(\d)?\))? # Optional (n/m) for OneOf tags + \s+(.*?) # Spec point ID + (?: - (.*))?$ # Optional comment + /x
365-365: Consider safer dictionary accessThe double force unwrap could be replaced with a more defensive approach.
- let specPoint = specPointsByID[specPointID]!.first! + guard let specPoints = specPointsByID[specPointID], + let specPoint = specPoints.first else { + preconditionFailure("Spec point \(specPointID) not found in dictionary") + }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
.github/workflows/check.yaml(2 hunks)AblyChat.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved(2 hunks)CONTRIBUTING.md(1 hunks)Package.resolved(2 hunks)Package.swift(2 hunks)Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift(3 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (5)
- .github/workflows/check.yaml
- AblyChat.xcworkspace/xcshareddata/swiftpm/Package.resolved
- CONTRIBUTING.md
- Package.resolved
- Package.swift
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (1)
Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift (5)
Learnt from: lawrence-forooghian
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-swift#93
File: Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift:232-233
Timestamp: 2024-10-31T12:09:46.733Z
Learning: In `Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift`, when using `Regex.firstMatch(in:)` without a throwing transformation, it's acceptable to use `try!` as it won't throw an error.
Learnt from: lawrence-forooghian
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-swift#93
File: Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift:438-439
Timestamp: 2024-10-31T12:09:03.256Z
Learning: In `Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift`, it's acceptable to use `try!` when calling `Table(data:).table()` because the only possible errors are programmer errors, making explicit error handling unnecessary.
Learnt from: lawrence-forooghian
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-swift#93
File: Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift:529-530
Timestamp: 2024-10-31T12:08:23.040Z
Learning: In Swift code, when encountering programmer errors, it's acceptable to use `preconditionFailure` instead of throwing an error.
Learnt from: lawrence-forooghian
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-swift#93
File: Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift:295-296
Timestamp: 2024-10-31T12:09:18.088Z
Learning: In this codebase, programmer errors are not handled by throwing `Error`s. Instead, `preconditionFailure` or similar methods are used.
Learnt from: lawrence-forooghian
PR: ably-labs/ably-chat-swift#93
File: Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift:551-552
Timestamp: 2024-10-31T12:08:14.757Z
Learning: The codebase uses a throwing equivalent of `String(data:encoding:)`, so optional unwrapping suggestions are not needed in such cases.
🔇 Additional comments (6)
Sources/BuildTool/BuildTool.swift (6)
Line range hint 1-17: LGTM!
The SpecCoverage command is properly registered in the BuildTool configuration.
203-214: LGTM!
The command structure is well-defined with comprehensive error cases for different failure scenarios.
216-248: LGTM!
The SpecFile implementation correctly parses spec points from the file content. The use of try! with firstMatch is acceptable here as per the established practice.
523-541: LGTM with known issue
The GitHub API interaction is implemented correctly, though there's a known issue with rate limiting that's already being addressed.
543-626: LGTM!
The file loading and parsing implementation is robust and follows the codebase's practices for error handling and string initialization.
498-499: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Make branch name configurable
The branch name is currently hardcoded to "chat-lifecycle". Consider making it a command-line option with "chat-lifecycle" as the default value.
+ @Option(help: "The branch name to fetch the spec from", default: "chat-lifecycle")
+ var branchName: String
+
mutating func run() async throws {
- // TODO: https://github.com/ably-labs/ably-chat-swift/issues/97 - switch to use main at some point
- let branchName = "chat-lifecycle"Likely invalid or redundant comment.
This will help us figure out what we still need to implement. Resolves #46.
lawrence-forooghian
force-pushed
the
46-spec-coverage
branch
from
4079c69 to
59cdb3b
Compare
I mean shouldn't this tool also be covered by tests? Although I understand that this is probably a bit too much. |
Oh, I see. I’m not really in the habit of writing tests for this sort of script. |
This generates a report, using our
@specetc tags, of which spec points we've implemented. This will help us to know what we still need to implement.Resolves #46.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
spec-coveragejob to the GitHub Actions workflow for enhanced testing coverage analysis.SpecCoveragecommand in the BuildTool for reporting specification point implementations.Documentation
CONTRIBUTING.mdto clarify testing guidelines and introduce new documentation standards for test-related APIs and spec points.Chores
Table, to the project for improved functionality.