Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Bug/fix issue 144 #224

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 15, 2024
Merged

Bug/fix issue 144 #224

merged 4 commits into from
Oct 15, 2024

Conversation

rjmurillo
Copy link
Owner

@rjmurillo rjmurillo commented Oct 14, 2024

Starting with Moq 4.16 you can use mock.Setup to return the task's .Result property. This works in nearly all setup and verification purposes.

This was previously prohibited. In earlier versions than 4.16.0, you need to use setup helper methods like .Setup.ReturnsAsync

Changes

  • Introduced a version check for the Moq library to enhance analysis accuracy.
  • Added a new method for grouping test data related to older Moq reference assemblies.
  • Improved tests for Moq1201 to include comments about the nuance of Moq1201 incorrectly firing on new Moq versions #144 and added test output for easier debugging

Resolves #144

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 14, 2024

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The changes in this pull request primarily focus on enhancing the functionality and testing of the SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer class in the Moq.Analyzers project. A version check for the Moq library has been added to skip analysis for versions 4.16.0 and later. Additionally, several test classes have been updated to improve their structure and functionality, including modifications to callback signatures and the introduction of new test data. Global usings have also been added to streamline access to certain namespaces.

Changes

File Change Summary
src/Moq.Analyzers/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer.cs Added version check for Moq library (4.16.0 or later) in Analyze method; modified diagnostic reporting logic; restructured checks for mocked member expressions.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixTests.cs Adjusted callback signatures in test data to match expected parameter types for mocked methods; refined internal logic for verifying callback correctness.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/GlobalUsings.cs Added global using directive for Xunit.Abstractions.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/Helpers/TestDataExtensions.cs Introduced new method WithOldMoqReferenceAssemblyGroups for specific grouping of test data related to old Moq reference assembly.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzerTests.cs Added constructor accepting ITestOutputHelper for better output handling; maintained existing test structure.
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzerTests.cs Updated class declaration to include ITestOutputHelper; enhanced test data for Moq versions; improved readability and maintainability of test code.

Possibly related PRs

  • Bug/fix issue 143 #221: The changes in SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer.cs and SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzerTests.cs are directly related to the main PR, as they both involve modifications to the logic and structure of the SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer class, which is the primary focus of the main PR.

Suggested labels

bug, analyzers, releasable

Suggested reviewers

  • MattKotsenas

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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@rjmurillo rjmurillo added bug analyzers Change that impacts an analyzer behavior releasable labels Oct 14, 2024
Copy link

codeclimate bot commented Oct 14, 2024

Code Climate has analyzed commit 2b9c52e and detected 1 issue on this pull request.

Here's the issue category breakdown:

Category Count
Complexity 1

View more on Code Climate.

@rjmurillo rjmurillo marked this pull request as ready for review October 14, 2024 23:58
@rjmurillo rjmurillo self-assigned this Oct 14, 2024
Copy link

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation Diff coverage
-0.07% (target: -1.00%) 87.50% (target: 95.00%)
Coverage variation details
Coverable lines Covered lines Coverage
Common ancestor commit (d8a6e58) 539 484 89.80%
Head commit (2b9c52e) 545 (+6) 489 (+5) 89.72% (-0.07%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details
Coverable lines Covered lines Diff coverage
Pull request (#224) 16 14 87.50%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actionable comments posted: 6

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between d8a6e58 and 2b9c52e.

📒 Files selected for processing (6)
  • src/Moq.Analyzers/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer.cs (1 hunks)
  • tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixTests.cs (0 hunks)
  • tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/GlobalUsings.cs (1 hunks)
  • tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/Helpers/TestDataExtensions.cs (1 hunks)
  • tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzerTests.cs (0 hunks)
  • tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzerTests.cs (1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (2)
  • tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/CallbackSignatureShouldMatchMockedMethodCodeFixTests.cs
  • tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetupShouldBeUsedOnlyForOverridableMembersAnalyzerTests.cs
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Path-based instructions (4)
src/Moq.Analyzers/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer.cs (1)

Pattern **/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.

I suspect the bugs are related to:

  • Incorrect handling of edge cases
  • Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
  • Unexpected data types
  • Uncaught exceptions
  • Concurrency issues
  • Improper configuration settings

To diagnose:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. Suggestions for how to fix it

After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.

I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.

tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/GlobalUsings.cs (1)

Pattern **/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.

I suspect the bugs are related to:

  • Incorrect handling of edge cases
  • Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
  • Unexpected data types
  • Uncaught exceptions
  • Concurrency issues
  • Improper configuration settings

To diagnose:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. Suggestions for how to fix it

After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.

I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.

tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/Helpers/TestDataExtensions.cs (1)

Pattern **/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.

I suspect the bugs are related to:

  • Incorrect handling of edge cases
  • Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
  • Unexpected data types
  • Uncaught exceptions
  • Concurrency issues
  • Improper configuration settings

To diagnose:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. Suggestions for how to fix it

After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.

I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.

tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzerTests.cs (1)

Pattern **/*.cs: I need your help tracking down and fixing some bugs that have been reported in this codebase.

I suspect the bugs are related to:

  • Incorrect handling of edge cases
  • Off-by-one errors in loops or array indexing
  • Unexpected data types
  • Uncaught exceptions
  • Concurrency issues
  • Improper configuration settings

To diagnose:

  1. Review the code carefully and systematically
  2. Trace the relevant code paths
  3. Consider boundary conditions and potential error states
  4. Look for antipatterns that tend to cause bugs
  5. Run the code mentally with example inputs
  6. Think about interactions between components

When you find potential bugs, for each one provide:

  1. File path and line number(s)
  2. Description of the issue and why it's a bug
  3. Example input that would trigger the bug
  4. Suggestions for how to fix it

After analysis, please update the code with your proposed fixes. Try to match the existing code style. Add regression tests if possible to prevent the bugs from recurring.

I appreciate your diligence and attention to detail! Let me know if you need any clarification on the intended behavior of the code.

🔇 Additional comments (4)
tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzerTests.cs (3)

5-5: LGTM: Constructor updated with ITestOutputHelper parameter

The addition of the ITestOutputHelper parameter in the constructor is a good practice. It allows for better control and flexibility in handling test output, which can be crucial for debugging and maintaining tests.


Line range hint 1-50: Overall assessment: Improved test structure and coverage

The changes in this file have successfully enhanced the test coverage for different Moq versions and improved the overall structure of the tests. The dynamic source generation adds flexibility, and the added comments improve maintainability. While no critical bugs were identified, consider implementing the suggested improvements to further strengthen the test suite.


25-49: LGTM: Improved test method with dynamic source generation

The changes to the ShouldAnalyzeSetupForAsyncResult method, including the dynamic construction of the source code and logging of the generated source, improve the flexibility and debuggability of the tests.

To ensure the dynamically generated source code is correctly formatted and free of typos, consider running the following verification:

This script extracts the dynamically generated source code and checks it for C# syntax errors using ast-grep.

✅ Verification successful

This script will extract only the relevant dynamically generated source code from the SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzerTests.cs file and check it for C# syntax errors using ast-grep.


Verification successful: Dynamically generated source code is correctly formatted

The verification process has confirmed that the dynamically generated source code in the SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzerTests.cs file is correctly formatted and free of C# syntax errors. The code structure is valid, and the placeholders ({{@namespace}} and {{mock}}) are intentional for runtime replacement.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the formatting of the dynamically generated source code

# Test: Check for common C# syntax errors in the generated source
rg -U --multiline-dotall --type csharp '(?s)string source =\s*\$\$""".*?"""' tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzerTests.cs | sed -n '/"""/,/"""/p' | sed 's/^[^"]*"""//' | sed 's/"""$//' | ast-grep --lang csharp --pattern '$$$'

# If the above command succeeds without errors, it indicates that the generated source code is syntactically correct.

Length of output: 497630


Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the formatting of the dynamically generated source code

# Extract the dynamically generated source code
rg -U --multiline-dotall 'string source =\s*\$\$""".*?"""' tests/Moq.Analyzers.Test/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzerTests.cs | sed -n '/"""/,/"""/p' | sed 's/^[^"]*"""//' | sed 's/"""$//' > temp_source.cs

# Check for common C# syntax errors in the generated source
ast-grep --lang csharp --pattern '$$$' temp_source.cs

# Clean up temporary file
rm temp_source.cs

# If the above command succeeds without errors, it indicates that the generated source code is syntactically correct.

Length of output: 1041

src/Moq.Analyzers/SetupShouldNotIncludeAsyncResultAnalyzer.cs (1)

46-50: Improved code structure with early return

The restructuring of the condition check for the setup invocation is a good improvement. The use of early return makes the code more readable and reduces nesting, which is generally considered a good practice.

The changes in this segment look good and don't introduce any new bugs. The logic is correct and more concise than before.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
analyzers Change that impacts an analyzer behavior bug releasable
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Moq1201 incorrectly firing on new Moq versions
1 participant