Skip to content

test working directory #530

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 20, 2024
Merged

test working directory #530

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 20, 2024

Conversation

jan-janssen
Copy link
Member

@jan-janssen jan-janssen commented Dec 20, 2024

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Introduced a new test class for validating the handling of output files in a specified working directory.
    • Added a method to verify the functionality of output file mapping.
    • Updated existing tests to include necessary imports and added a cleanup step for cache management.

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Dec 20, 2024

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces a new test class TestWorkingDirectory in the tests/test_executor_backend_mpi.py file. The primary focus is on testing the Executor class's ability to handle output files when a specific working directory is specified. The changes include adding a new test method test_output_files_cwd() that verifies the correct mapping of a calculation function over a list of integers within a custom working directory.

Changes

File Change Summary
tests/test_executor_backend_mpi.py - Added new test class TestWorkingDirectory
- Added test_output_files_cwd() method
- Imported os module
- Updated TestExecutorBackendCache with cleanup step

Possibly related PRs

  • Use same cache directory #466: Modifies the cwd parameter for Executor instantiation, directly related to the working directory handling tested in this PR.

Poem

🐰 In the realm of code, a test takes flight,
Working directories now shine so bright!
MPI executors dance with glee,
Mapping functions, setting paths free
A rabbit's test, precise and neat! 🧪

Tip

CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command @coderabbitai generate docstrings to have CodeRabbit automatically generate docstrings for your pull request. We would love to hear your feedback on Discord.


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 generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @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.

Copy link
Contributor

@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: 2

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
tests/test_executor_backend_mpi.py (2)

126-130: Add more comprehensive test cases

The current test only covers basic calculation with a single core. Consider adding:

  1. Test cases for multi-core scenarios with working directory
  2. Tests that verify file operations and side effects
  3. Tests for concurrent access to the working directory

Example test to add:

def test_output_files_cwd_multicore(self):
    def calc_with_file(i):
        # Write to a file to verify working directory
        with open(f"output_{i}.txt", "w") as f:
            f.write(str(i))
        return i

    with Executor(
        max_cores=2,
        resource_dict={"cores": 2, "cwd": self.test_dir},
        backend="local",
        block_allocation=True,
    ) as p:
        output = p.map(calc_with_file, [1, 2, 3])
        # Verify files were created in working directory
        for i in [1, 2, 3]:
            self.assertTrue(os.path.exists(
                os.path.join(self.test_dir, f"output_{i}.txt")
            ))
    self.assertEqual(list(output), [1, 2, 3])

116-116: Consider improving test organization

The test classes could benefit from:

  1. A base test class with common setup/teardown logic
  2. Shared helper methods for directory management
  3. Constants for common test configurations

Example refactoring:

class ExecutorTestBase(unittest.TestCase):
    def setUp(self):
        self.test_dir = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), "test_workdir")
        os.makedirs(self.test_dir)

    def tearDown(self):
        if os.path.exists(self.test_dir):
            shutil.rmtree(self.test_dir)

    def create_executor(self, **kwargs):
        default_config = {
            "max_cores": 1,
            "backend": "local",
            "block_allocation": True,
        }
        return Executor(**{**default_config, **kwargs})

class TestWorkingDirectory(ExecutorTestBase):
    # Your tests here
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f1649fa and 1bc6902.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • tests/test_executor_backend_mpi.py (2 hunks)

Comment on lines +118 to +119
dirname = os.path.abspath(os.path.dirname(__file__))
os.makedirs(dirname, exist_ok=True)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

⚠️ Potential issue

Remove unnecessary directory creation of the test file's directory

Creating the directory of the test file itself (__file__) is problematic because:

  1. The directory already exists (the test file is in it)
  2. It could cause permission issues
  3. It doesn't actually test working directory functionality

Instead, create a temporary test directory:

-        dirname = os.path.abspath(os.path.dirname(__file__))
-        os.makedirs(dirname, exist_ok=True)
+        dirname = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), "test_workdir")
+        os.makedirs(dirname)
📝 Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change
dirname = os.path.abspath(os.path.dirname(__file__))
os.makedirs(dirname, exist_ok=True)
dirname = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), "test_workdir")
os.makedirs(dirname)

Comment on lines +116 to +130
class TestWorkingDirectory(unittest.TestCase):
def test_output_files_cwd(self):
dirname = os.path.abspath(os.path.dirname(__file__))
os.makedirs(dirname, exist_ok=True)
with Executor(
max_cores=1,
resource_dict={"cores": 1, "cwd": dirname},
backend="local",
block_allocation=True,
) as p:
output = p.map(calc, [1, 2, 3])
self.assertEqual(
list(output),
[1, 2, 3],
)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🛠️ Refactor suggestion

Enhance test coverage for working directory functionality

The current test only verifies calculation results but doesn't actually test if the working directory is being used correctly. Consider:

  1. Adding cleanup in tearDown
  2. Testing file operations in the working directory
  3. Testing non-existent directory cases

Here's a suggested implementation:

 class TestWorkingDirectory(unittest.TestCase):
+    def setUp(self):
+        self.test_dir = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), "test_workdir")
+        os.makedirs(self.test_dir)
+
+    def tearDown(self):
+        if os.path.exists(self.test_dir):
+            shutil.rmtree(self.test_dir)
+
     def test_output_files_cwd(self):
-        dirname = os.path.abspath(os.path.dirname(__file__))
-        os.makedirs(dirname, exist_ok=True)
         with Executor(
             max_cores=1,
-            resource_dict={"cores": 1, "cwd": dirname},
+            resource_dict={"cores": 1, "cwd": self.test_dir},
             backend="local",
             block_allocation=True,
         ) as p:
             output = p.map(calc, [1, 2, 3])
+            # Verify working directory was used
+            self.assertEqual(os.getcwd(), self.test_dir)
         self.assertEqual(
             list(output),
             [1, 2, 3],
         )
+
+    def test_nonexistent_workdir(self):
+        nonexistent_dir = os.path.join(self.test_dir, "nonexistent")
+        with self.assertRaises(FileNotFoundError):
+            with Executor(
+                max_cores=1,
+                resource_dict={"cores": 1, "cwd": nonexistent_dir},
+                backend="local",
+                block_allocation=True,
+            ):
+                pass
📝 Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change
class TestWorkingDirectory(unittest.TestCase):
def test_output_files_cwd(self):
dirname = os.path.abspath(os.path.dirname(__file__))
os.makedirs(dirname, exist_ok=True)
with Executor(
max_cores=1,
resource_dict={"cores": 1, "cwd": dirname},
backend="local",
block_allocation=True,
) as p:
output = p.map(calc, [1, 2, 3])
self.assertEqual(
list(output),
[1, 2, 3],
)
class TestWorkingDirectory(unittest.TestCase):
def setUp(self):
self.test_dir = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), "test_workdir")
os.makedirs(self.test_dir)
def tearDown(self):
if os.path.exists(self.test_dir):
shutil.rmtree(self.test_dir)
def test_output_files_cwd(self):
with Executor(
max_cores=1,
resource_dict={"cores": 1, "cwd": self.test_dir},
backend="local",
block_allocation=True,
) as p:
output = p.map(calc, [1, 2, 3])
# Verify working directory was used
self.assertEqual(os.getcwd(), self.test_dir)
self.assertEqual(
list(output),
[1, 2, 3],
)
def test_nonexistent_workdir(self):
nonexistent_dir = os.path.join(self.test_dir, "nonexistent")
with self.assertRaises(FileNotFoundError):
with Executor(
max_cores=1,
resource_dict={"cores": 1, "cwd": nonexistent_dir},
backend="local",
block_allocation=True,
):
pass

@jan-janssen jan-janssen reopened this Dec 20, 2024
@jan-janssen jan-janssen merged commit e9a81f8 into main Dec 20, 2024
45 of 50 checks passed
@jan-janssen jan-janssen deleted the cwd_test branch December 20, 2024 05:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant