Add unit test to fizzbuzzo3 #8
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #8 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 2 2
Lines 12 12
Branches 1 1
=========================================
Hits 12 12 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://github.com/avatars/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @MusicalNinjaDad - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!
General suggestions:
- Consider expanding the test coverage to include various input scenarios for the
fizzbuzzfunction, ensuring comprehensive validation of its behavior. - Implement more descriptive error handling in tests to improve the clarity and usefulness of test failure messages.
- Include tests that validate the Python environment setup to prevent false negatives caused by configuration or environment issues.
Here's what I looked at during the review
- 🟡 General issues: 2 issues found
- 🟢 Security: all looks good
- 🟡 Testing: 3 issues found
- 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
- 🟢 Docstrings: all looks good
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment to tell me if it was helpful.
| let fizzbuzz = fizzbuzzo3.getattr("fizzbuzz").expect("Failed to get fizzbuzz function"); | ||
| let result = fizzbuzz.call((1i32,), None).expect("Failed to call fizzbuzz"); | ||
| let expected_result = "1"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (code_refinement): Consider handling potential exceptions more gracefully.
Using expect in tests for library imports and function calls can be abrupt. It might be more informative to handle potential exceptions more gracefully to provide clearer feedback on what exactly failed.
| let fizzbuzz = fizzbuzzo3.getattr("fizzbuzz").expect("Failed to get fizzbuzz function"); | ||
| let result = fizzbuzz.call((1i32,), None).expect("Failed to call fizzbuzz"); | ||
| let expected_result = "1"; | ||
| assert_eq!(result.extract::<String>().unwrap(), expected_result); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (code_refinement): Use of unwrap in test assertions could be replaced with more descriptive error handling.
While unwrap is convenient, in a test scenario, it might be more beneficial to use match or if let constructs to provide more context-specific error messages upon failures.
| // use pyo3::prelude::*; | ||
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn test_fizzbuzz() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (testing): Add error handling test cases for fizzbuzz function.
It's important to test how the fizzbuzz function behaves under error conditions or with invalid inputs. Consider adding tests that pass invalid arguments to the fizzbuzz function to ensure it fails gracefully.
MusicalNinjaDad
force-pushed
the
fizzbuzzo3_tests
branch
from
2b871e4
to
034d2d1
Compare
No description provided.