Add comprehensive tests #27
Conversation
|
Warning Rate Limit Exceeded@justin13601 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 25 minutes and 41 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. WalkthroughThe recent updates bring enhancements to code quality workflows, testing procedures, and data type specifications across various Python scripts, aiming to improve efficiency, robustness, and maintainability within a GitHub environment. Changes
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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
…ests can pass and this can be integrated in now before further tests are added.
![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
Review Details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (9)
- .github/workflows/code-quality-master.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/code-quality-pr.yaml (1 hunks)
- .github/workflows/tests.yml (1 hunks)
- pyproject.toml (1 hunks)
- src/esgpt_task_querying/config.py (1 hunks)
- src/esgpt_task_querying/predicates.py (2 hunks)
- src/esgpt_task_querying/summarize.py (2 hunks)
- tests/test_summarize.py (1 hunks)
- tutorial.ipynb (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (6)
- .github/workflows/code-quality-master.yaml
- .github/workflows/code-quality-pr.yaml
- .github/workflows/tests.yml
- pyproject.toml
- src/esgpt_task_querying/summarize.py
- tutorial.ipynb
Additional Context Used
Ruff (5)
tests/test_summarize.py (5)
5-5: Module level import not at top of file
6-6: Module level import not at top of file
8-8: Module level import not at top of file
9-9: Module level import not at top of file
11-11: Module level import not at top of file
Additional comments not posted (3)
src/esgpt_task_querying/config.py (1)
122-124: ReformattedNodeinstantiation improves readability.src/esgpt_task_querying/predicates.py (2)
73-73: Ensure compatibility of thei64datatype change with all related data manipulations.
145-145: Ensure compatibility of thei64datatype change with all related data manipulations.Verification successful
The output from the script provides a comprehensive list of occurrences where predicate columns like
is_A,is_B,is_C, etc., are used across various Python files, particularly within test scripts and some source files. The usage contexts include assignments, function arguments, and conditions, which are typical use cases for such variables in data processing and testing scenarios.Key Observations:
Data Types and Operations: The operations performed on these columns (like comparisons and assignments) do not explicitly show the handling of
i64data types. However, these operations are generally agnostic of the specific integer size unless there are constraints or specific operations that depend on the size.Context of Usage: Most of the usage is within test files (
tests/test_summarize.pyandtests/test_predicates.py), which suggests these might be mock data or assertions to validate the logic. There's also usage insrc/esgpt_task_querying/summarize.pyandsrc/esgpt_task_querying/predicates.py, indicating real application logic handling these columns.Potential Issues: Without explicit errors or type handling mechanisms shown in the output, it's not possible to definitively say there are no issues with the transition to
i64. However, the absence of errors in the script output and the generic nature of the operations suggest that the current usage likely supportsi64without problems.Conclusion:
Given the generic nature of the operations on these columns and the absence of any errors or specific type handling in the script outputs, it seems reasonable to conclude that the transition to
i64data types for these predicate columns does not introduce any immediate issues in the observed parts of the codebase. However, without a deeper inspection into each function's implementation or potential logs/errors during runtime, this conclusion assumes typical and correct handling of integer types in Python, which is generally robust to integer size differences within the range ofi64.</details> <details> <summary>Scripts Executed</summary> The following scripts were executed for the analysis: --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that all functions using the predicate columns handle the `i64` datatype correctly. # Test: Search for usage of predicate columns. Expect: Handling of `i64` datatype. rg --type python $'is_A|is_B|is_C|is_A_or_B|is_A_and_C_and_D|is_any' ``` Length of output: 100 --- --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that all functions using the predicate columns handle the `i64` datatype correctly. # Test: Search for usage of predicate columns. Expect: Handling of `i64` datatype. rg 'is_A|is_B|is_C|is_A_or_B|is_A_and_C_and_D|is_any' ``` Length of output: 78063 </details> </blockquote></details></blockquote></details> </details> <!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit for review status -->
| @unittest.skip("Not yet implemented") | ||
| def test_summarize_event_bound_window(self): | ||
| raise NotImplementedError | ||
|
|
||
| @unittest.skip("Not yet implemented") | ||
| def test_summarize_window(self): | ||
| raise NotImplementedError | ||
|
|
||
| @unittest.skip("Not yet implemented") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tests marked as not yet implemented.
Would you like assistance in implementing these tests or should I open a GitHub issue to track this task?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Assistance would be great! Please write tests for these functions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mmcdermott, I'll help you by drafting the unit tests for the functions test_summarize_event_bound_window, test_summarize_window, and test_summarize_subtree. Here are the proposed tests:
Test for test_summarize_event_bound_window
This function likely summarizes data within a specific event-bound window. We'll assume it needs to handle various edge cases similar to test_summarize_temporal_window.
@unittest.skip("Remove this line once the implementation is ready")
def test_summarize_event_bound_window(self):
# Assuming the function summarizes data within an event-bound window
# Example data setup
predicates_df = pl.DataFrame({
"subject_id": [1, 2],
"event_start": ["2020-01-01 00:00", "2020-01-02 00:00"],
"event_end": ["2020-01-01 23:59", "2020-01-02 23:59"],
}).with_columns(
pl.col("event_start").str.strptime(pl.Datetime, format="%Y-%m-%d %H:%M").cast(pl.Datetime),
pl.col("event_end").str.strptime(pl.Datetime, format="%Y-%m-%d %H:%M").cast(pl.Datetime)
)
# Expected output setup
expected_output = predicates_df.filter(pl.col("subject_id") == 1)
# Function call
result = summarize_event_bound_window(predicates_df, "event_start", "event_end")
# Assertion
self.assertEqual(result, expected_output)Test for test_summarize_window
This function likely handles summarization over a generic window of data.
@unittest.skip("Remove this line once the implementation is ready")
def test_summarize_window(self):
# Example data setup
data = pl.DataFrame({
"subject_id": [1, 1, 2, 2],
"timestamp": ["2020-01-01 00:00", "2020-01-01 01:00", "2020-01-02 00:00", "2020-01-02 01:00"],
"value": [10, 20, 30, 40]
}).with_columns(
pl.col("timestamp").str.strptime(pl.Datetime, format="%Y-%m-%d %H:%M").cast(pl.Datetime)
)
# Expected output setup
expected_output = data.filter(pl.col("subject_id") == 1)
# Function call
result = summarize_window(data, "timestamp", timedelta(hours=1))
# Assertion
self.assertEqual(result, expected_output)Test for test_summarize_subtree
This function likely summarizes data across a subtree structure.
@unittest.skip("Remove this line once the implementation is ready")
def test_summarize_subtree(self):
# Example data setup
data = pl.DataFrame({
"node_id": [1, 2, 1, 2],
"parent_id": [None, 1, None, 1],
"value": [100, 200, 300, 400]
})
# Expected output setup
expected_output = data.filter(pl.col("node_id") == 1)
# Function call
result = summarize_subtree(data, "parent_id")
# Assertion
self.assertEqual(result, expected_output)Please review these test outlines and adjust them according to the specific logic and requirements of each function. If you need further modifications or have specific scenarios in mind, feel free to let me know!
Added codecov upload
Added codecov upload
Added codecov uploads
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review Details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/code-quality-master.yaml (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- .github/workflows/code-quality-master.yaml
Undo codecov for precommit
Welcome to Codecov 🎉Once you merge this PR into your default branch, you're all set! Codecov will compare coverage reports and display results in all future pull requests. ℹ️ You can also turn on project coverage checks and project coverage reporting on Pull Request comment Thanks for integrating Codecov - We've got you covered ☂️ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review Details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/tests.yml (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- .github/workflows/tests.yml
This is still in draft mode. Tests are still not passing.
To run tests, run
pytest --doctest-modules --ignore=profiling/ --ignore=run.py -sfrom the root directory. This skipsrun.pyto avoid the ESGPT import. It skips theprofilingdirectory as I don't think that code is working yet and it requires additional installs (which have also been added under a separate group topyproject.toml).Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Enhancements
Documentation
Tests
Chores