feat: [#280] Optimize migrate:status command #696
Conversation
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request introduce new methods and modify existing structures within the migration framework. Notably, the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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 (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 13
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (10)
contracts/database/migration/migrator.go (1)
17-18: Enhance method documentation for better clarity.The addition of the
Status()method is well-designed and aligns with the interface's purpose. However, the documentation could be more descriptive about what kind of status information is returned and potential error cases.Consider expanding the documentation like this:
-// Status get the migration's status. +// Status retrieves the current state of all migrations, including which migrations +// have been run and which are pending. Returns an error if the status cannot be +// determined, e.g., due to database connectivity issues.contracts/database/migration/repository.go (1)
20-21: LGTM! Consider enhancing the documentation.The new method signature is well-designed and consistent with the interface's patterns. It complements existing functionality while maintaining the interface's cohesion.
Consider expanding the documentation comment to clarify the ordering of returned migrations:
-// GetMigrationBatches Get the completed migrations with their batch numbers. +// GetMigrationBatches Get the completed migrations with their batch numbers. +// Returns migrations ordered by batch number and migration name.database/migration/repository.go (1)
61-68: Implementation looks good but consider pagination for large datasets.The implementation is clean and follows the established patterns in the codebase. However, for repositories with a large number of migrations, retrieving all records at once could impact memory usage and performance.
Consider adding pagination support:
-func (r *Repository) GetMigrationBatches() ([]migration.File, error) { +func (r *Repository) GetMigrationBatches(page, perPage int) ([]migration.File, error) { var files []migration.File - if err := r.schema.Orm().Query().Table(r.table).OrderByDesc("batch").OrderByDesc("migration").Get(&files); err != nil { + if err := r.schema.Orm().Query().Table(r.table). + OrderByDesc("batch"). + OrderByDesc("migration"). + Offset((page - 1) * perPage). + Limit(perPage). + Get(&files); err != nil { return nil, err } return files, nil }This would allow clients to fetch migrations in smaller chunks, reducing memory usage and improving response times.
database/migration/stubs.go (1)
32-35: Great architectural improvement using the schema builder.The transition from raw SQL to using the framework's schema builder is a solid improvement that:
- Provides better type safety
- Improves maintainability
- Makes the code more consistent with the framework's design patterns
Also applies to: 63-66
database/migration/default_migrator.go (1)
239-246: Consistent Formatting for Output TitlesThe
printTitlemethod formats the title for the migration status display. Ensure that the title formatting aligns with the output for better readability.Consider adjusting the separator length to match the total width of the output:
func (r *DefaultMigrator) printTitle(maxNameLength int) { color.Default().Print(fmt.Sprintf("%-*s", maxNameLength, "Migration name")) color.Default().Println(" | Batch / Status") - for i := 0; i < maxNameLength+17; i++ { + for i := 0; i < maxNameLength+15; i++ { color.Default().Print("-") } color.Default().Println() }database/migration/default_migrator_test.go (5)
Line range hint
130-137: Ensure Cleanup of Generated Files inTestCreateWhile the defer function removes the
databasedirectory after the test, consider explicitly removing the created migration file to prevent residual files if the test directory structure changes or if the test fails before reaching the defer statement.
146-157: Use Descriptive Error Messages inTestFreshIn
TestFresh, errors are compared usingassert.AnError, which may not provide sufficient detail. Consider using more specific error checks or custom error messages to improve test clarity and debuggability.
Line range hint
229-239: Expand Test Coverage inTestGetFilesForRollbackThe
TestGetFilesForRollbackmethod could include additional test cases to cover edge conditions, such as when no migrations exist or invalid step and batch numbers are provided. This will ensure the method behaves correctly under all possible scenarios.
332-336: Simplify Output Comparison inTestPrintTitleComparing the exact output string with color codes in
TestPrintTitlecan be fragile due to potential changes in formatting or color schemes. Consider abstracting the color codes or using a helper function to compare the output without color codes to make the test more robust.
Line range hint
356-363: EnhanceTestRollbackwith Additional ScenariosCurrently,
TestRollbacklacks test cases. Adding tests for various rollback scenarios, such as rolling back multiple batches or handling errors during rollback, will improve test coverage and ensure the rollback functionality is reliable.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
mocks/database/migration/Migrator.gois excluded by!mocks/**mocks/database/migration/Repository.gois excluded by!mocks/**
📒 Files selected for processing (13)
- contracts/database/migration/migrator.go (1 hunks)
- contracts/database/migration/repository.go (1 hunks)
- database/console/migration/migrate_status_command.go (1 hunks)
- database/console/migration/migrate_status_command_test.go (0 hunks)
- database/migration/default_creator_test.go (2 hunks)
- database/migration/default_migrator.go (4 hunks)
- database/migration/default_migrator_test.go (19 hunks)
- database/migration/repository.go (1 hunks)
- database/migration/repository_test.go (1 hunks)
- database/migration/sql_migrator.go (2 hunks)
- database/migration/sql_migrator_test.go (3 hunks)
- database/migration/stubs.go (2 hunks)
- database/service_provider.go (1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- database/console/migration/migrate_status_command_test.go
🔇 Additional comments (23)
database/console/migration/migrate_status_command.go (4)
6-6: LGTM! Import changes align with the new dependency.The addition of the migration contract import and removal of the config import properly reflect the structural changes in the command.
10-10: Great improvement in dependency design!The switch from
config.Configtomigration.Migratoris a solid improvement that:
- Makes the dependencies more explicit and focused
- Follows interface segregation principle
- Improves testability by allowing mock injection
13-16: LGTM! Constructor properly initializes the new dependency.The constructor changes are consistent with the struct modifications and maintain clean initialization 8000 .
20-20: LGTM! Consistent and idiomatic receiver naming.The change to use
ras the receiver name follows Go's common practice of using short, consistent receiver names.Also applies to: 25-25, 30-30
database/migration/repository.go (1)
61-68: Verify interface implementation and usage.Let's ensure the new method is properly integrated into the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the results, I can generate the final response as we have comprehensive information about the implementation, interface, and usage:
Implementation is properly integrated and tested
The method is:
- Correctly declared in the interface (
contracts/database/migration/repository.go)- Used in the default migrator implementation (
database/migration/default_migrator.go)- Well covered by tests in both
repository_test.goanddefault_migrator_test.go- Has corresponding mock implementations for testing
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify interface declaration and usage of GetMigrationBatches # Test 1: Check if the interface is updated echo "Checking interface declaration..." rg -A 1 "type Repository interface" "contracts/database/migration" # Test 2: Look for usages of the new method echo "Checking method usage..." rg "GetMigrationBatches" -A 2 # Test 3: Check for corresponding tests echo "Checking test coverage..." rg "TestRepository.*GetMigrationBatches" "database/migration"Length of output: 4589
database/migration/default_creator_test.go (3)
65-68: LGTM: Import statements are appropriate for the updated test implementation.The added imports for schema contracts and facades are necessary to support the new implementation using
facades.Schema().
98-101: LGTM: Duplicate imports are acceptable in test data.The repeated import block is appropriate here as it's part of different test cases in the test data, maintaining self-contained and readable test cases.
Line range hint
114-116: Verify the empty table modification implementation.The Update stub test case contains an empty implementation for the table modification. While this might be intentional for testing purposes, please verify if this accurately represents the test scenario you're trying to cover.
✅ Verification successful
The previous search might have been too specific. Let's broaden the search to:
- Find all table modifications in tests to understand the patterns
- Look at the complete test file to understand the context better
Empty table modification is intentional for the update stub template
The empty implementation is correct and intentional. This is a test case for verifying the migration stub generator's template structure. The test suite (
DefaultCreatorSuite) is specifically testing thePopulateStubmethod with different stub types:
- Empty stub - generates a migration with empty Up/Down methods
- Create stub - generates a migration with table creation logic
- Update stub - generates a migration with an empty table modification template
The empty table modification is the expected template structure that developers will later populate with their specific column modifications. This is evident from:
- The systematic test structure covering all stub types
- The presence of similar empty implementations in
database/migration/stubs.go- The test's purpose of verifying stub generation, not actual migration logic
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for similar patterns in other test files to understand if this is a common testing pattern rg -l 'Schema\(\)\.Table.*\{\s*\}' --type goLength of output: 46
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's try a broader search pattern to find table modifications in tests rg -A 5 'Schema\(\)\.Table.*\{' --type go # Also search for the specific test file content cat database/migration/default_creator_test.goLength of output: 3908
database/migration/repository_test.go (1)
97-107: Verify edge case handling.The current test case covers the happy path, but it would be beneficial to verify how the method handles edge cases.
Let's check if there are any existing edge case tests:
Would you like me to help generate additional test cases for:
- Empty migrations table
- Database connection errors
- Invalid batch numbers
✅ Verification successful
Edge cases are already covered in the test suite
After analyzing the codebase, I found that edge cases for
GetMigrationBatchesare adequately covered:
- The empty migrations case is tested in
default_migrator_test.gowith "No migrations found" test case- Database errors are properly handled in the implementation and tested:
- Error handling in repository:
if err := r.schema.Orm().Query()...- Error case tested in migrator:
s.mockRepository.EXPECT().GetMigrationBatches().Return(nil, assert.AnError)- The current test in
repository_test.goverifies correct ordering and batch numbersThe original review comment's concern about edge cases has been addressed in the broader test suite, making additional test cases unnecessary.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for edge case tests in migration-related test files # Expected: Tests for empty migrations table, error cases, etc. # Look for test cases involving empty or error scenarios rg -A 5 "TestRecord|TestCreate" "database/migration/*_test.go"Length of output: 133
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Let's first find the correct test file path fd "repository_test.go" # Then search for all test cases in the repository test file rg -A 5 "func.*Test" repository_test.go # Also search for error handling patterns rg "s\.(Error|NoError)" repository_test.goLength of output: 266
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Now that we have the correct path, let's search in it rg -A 5 "func.*Test" "database/migration/repository_test.go" # Search for error handling patterns in the correct path rg "s\.(Error|NoError)" "database/migration/repository_test.go" # Look for the GetMigrationBatches implementation to understand error cases rg -A 10 "GetMigrationBatches" "database/migration/"Length of output: 7357
database/migration/sql_migrator_test.go (2)
4-4: LGTM: Required imports added correctlyThe new imports (
ioandcolor) are necessary for implementing the output capture and formatting functionality in the new test.Also applies to: 17-17
127-146: LGTM: Comprehensive test coverageThe test method effectively covers both the "no migrations" and "successful migration" scenarios across different database drivers. It properly validates the output format and error handling.
database/migration/stubs.go (1)
32-35: LGTM! Imports are correctly structured.The new imports are properly organized and necessary for the schema operations used in the migration stubs.
database/migration/sql_migrator.go (2)
20-20: LGTM!The color package import is correctly added and appropriately used for formatting status messages.
106-124: LGTM! Error handling and basic status reporting implemented correctly.The implementation properly handles different error cases and reports the basic migration state.
database/migration/default_migrator.go (2)
4-11: Imports and Dependencies Added AppropriatelyThe additional imports such as
"fmt","slices", and support packages are necessary for the new functionality and are correctly included.
16-20: Definition ofstatusStructThe new
statusstruct is correctly defined to encapsulate migration status information with the fieldsName,Batch, andRan.database/migration/default_migrator_test.go (7)
100-100: Variable Renaming Enhances ClarityRenaming the
driverfield tomigratorin theDefaultMigratorSuitestruct improves code readability and accurately reflects the purpose of the field.
112-112: Correct Initialization ofmigratorinSetupTestInitializing
s.migratorwith a newDefaultMigratorinstance inSetupTestis appropriate and ensures the test suite has the necessary setup for migration tests.
241-270: Thorough Testing inTestGetMaxNameLengthThe
TestGetMaxNameLengthfunction comprehensively tests various cases, including empty lists, single items, multiple items, and equal length names, ensuring the method correctly calculates the maximum name length.
272-287: Proper Retrieval of Migrations inTestGetMigrations
TestGetMigrationseffectively tests the retrieval of migrations from the schema, confirming that all registered migrations are correctly returned.
307-322: Accurate Pending Migrations Identification inTestPendingMigrationsThe
TestPendingMigrationsfunction correctly identifies pending migrations by comparing registered migrations against those that have already run.
323-331: Correct Handling of Repository State inTestPrepareDatabaseThe
TestPrepareDatabasemethod appropriately tests both scenarios where the migration repository exists and when it needs to be created, ensuring that the migrator prepares the database as expected.
Line range hint
608-617: Graceful Handling of No Pending Migrations inTestRunPendingThe
TestRunPendingmethod correctly handles cases where there are no pending migrations to run, ensuring the method does not fail or produce unintended side effects in such scenarios.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
⚠️ Performance Alert ⚠️
Possible performance regression was detected for benchmark.
Benchmark result of this commit is worse than the previous benchmark result exceeding threshold 1.50.
| Benchmark suite | Current: 1b7bb09 | Previous: bef1222 | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
Benchmark_Fatal |
2e-7 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op |
1e-7 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op |
2 |
Benchmark_Fatal - ns/op |
2e-7 ns/op |
1e-7 ns/op |
2 |
This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.
1b7bb09
📑 Description
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Statusmethod for migration management, allowing users to retrieve the current migration status.GetMigrationsByStepmethod to retrieve migrations based on specified steps.Bug Fixes
Tests
Documentation
✅ Checks