feat: Add artisan about command #784
Conversation
|
Warning Rate limit exceeded@almas1992 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 11 minutes and 44 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. Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout. Please see our FAQ for further information. 📒 Files selected for processing (5)
WalkthroughThe changes introduce a new feature for providing detailed application information through an "about" command. A new Changes
Sequence DiagramsequenceDiagram
participant App as Application
participant Console as AboutCommand
participant InfoResolver as Custom Info Resolver
App->>Console: NewAboutCommand()
App->>Console: About(section, details)
Console->>Console: gatherApplicationInformation()
InfoResolver->>Console: Add custom information
Console-->>App: Display application information
The sequence diagram illustrates the flow of adding and retrieving application information, showing how the 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 (
|
|
Review Ready |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #784 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 69.73% 69.78% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 214 215 +1
Lines 18357 18440 +83
==========================================
+ Hits 12802 12869 +67
- Misses 4853 4869 +16
Partials 702 702 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
…san-about-command
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (6)
console/console/about_command_test.go (1)
16-40: Great use of mocks and coverage for the AboutCommand.The test thoroughly validates the default details and custom sections. However, consider adding a test case covering non-empty application version retrieval, verifying that the version string is displayed in the “Environment” section as expected. This helps ensure broader coverage for real-world usage.
console/console/about_command.go (5)
38-39: Coverage for command signature lines is missing.According to static analysis, lines 38–39 are not fully covered in tests. This is likely minor, but you could add an assertion in the test to confirm the command’s signature is “about.”
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 38-39: console/console/about_command.go#L38-L39
Added lines #L38 - L39 were not covered by tests
43-44: Coverage for command description lines is missing.Similar to the signature lines, consider adding a test that checks or logs the command’s description.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 43-44: console/console/about_command.go#L43-L44
Added lines #L43 - L44 were not covered by tests
48-56: Validate the Extend fields in a unit test.A test can confirm that the command’s Extend method returns the expected flags. This ensures that future changes to these flags don’t unintentionally break other parts of the application.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 48-56: console/console/about_command.go#L48-L56
Added lines #L48 - L56 were not covered by tests
85-85: Evaluate debug mode coverage.This condition is not covered. Although the normal path is tested, add a scenario where “app.debug” is false to confirm the “OFF” string is returned.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 85-85: console/console/about_command.go#L85
Added line #L85 was not covered by tests
103-103: Test fallback logging channel detection.In the “Logs” section, you handle stack channels distinctly, and line 103 handles the fallback case. Add a negative test for a non-stack channel (or an unrecognized channel) to ensure the fallback path is also tested.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 103-103: console/console/about_command.go#L103
Added line #L103 was not covered by tests
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
console/console/about_command.go(1 hunks)console/console/about_command_test.go(1 hunks)console/service_provider.go(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
console/service_provider.go
[warning] 42-42: console/service_provider.go#L42
Added line #L42 was not covered by tests
console/console/about_command.go
[warning] 38-39: console/console/about_command.go#L38-L39
Added lines #L38 - L39 were not covered by tests
[warning] 43-44: console/console/about_command.go#L43-L44
Added lines #L43 - L44 were not covered by tests
[warning] 48-56: console/console/about_command.go#L48-L56
Added lines #L48 - L56 were not covered by tests
[warning] 85-85: console/console/about_command.go#L85
Added line #L85 was not covered by tests
[warning] 103-103: console/console/about_command.go#L103
Added line #L103 was not covered by tests
🔇 Additional comments (1)
console/service_provider.go (1)
42-42: Consider adding or confirming test coverage for the new command registration.
Line 42 adds the AboutCommand registration. Although we have a test for the command’s functionality, ensure that the coverage includes testing that the command is indeed registered and discoverable by the application.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 42-42: console/service_provider.go#L42
Added line #L42 was not covered by tests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
foundation/console/about_command.go (2)
42-52: Consider adding a test case for the "only" flag
The "only" option is defined in the Extend method. A dedicated test confirming that passing -- the command line filters the output would help improve coverage and ensure expected behavior.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 43-51: foundation/console/about_command.go#L43-L51
Added lines #L43 - L51 were not covered by tests
140-145: Add usage details for AddAboutInformation
Occasionally, developers may be unfamiliar with how to add custom sections. Consider a short docstring or code comments clarifying usage and best practices for passing multiple details.foundation/application.go (1)
161-163: Add test coverage for the About method
Though the method is simple, adding a quick test confirming that calling About(...) successfully invokes console.AddAboutInformation(...) would confirm correctness and bump coverage.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 161-162: foundation/application.go#L161-L162
Added lines #L161 - L162 were not covered by tests
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
contracts/foundation/application.go(2 hunks)foundation/application.go(2 hunks)foundation/console/about_command.go(1 hunks)foundation/console/about_command_test.go(1 hunks)mocks/foundation/Application.go(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
foundation/application.go
[warning] 58-58: foundation/application.go#L58
Added line #L58 was not covered by tests
[warning] 161-162: foundation/application.go#L161-L162
Added lines #L161 - L162 were not covered by tests
foundation/console/about_command.go
[warning] 33-34: foundation/console/about_command.go#L33-L34
Added lines #L33 - L34 were not covered by tests
[warning] 38-39: foundation/console/about_command.go#L38-L39
Added lines #L38 - L39 were not covered by tests
[warning] 43-51: foundation/console/about_command.go#L43-L51
Added lines #L43 - L51 were not covered by tests
🔇 Additional comments (11)
foundation/console/about_command_test.go (3)
17-41: Good use of mocks and assertions in TestAboutCommand
The test effectively validates the command's interaction with mocked dependencies (App, Config, Context). Good job verifying that the sections ("Environment", "Drivers", "Custom") match expectations and that details are non-empty.
43-48: TestAddToSection coverage is thorough
The test confirms that a new section is created and entries are appended as expected. This ensures the internal state of the application information is correctly maintained.
50-57: Solid approach to testing the Range method
The test checks both section naming and the length of details. This ensures that iterating over sections behaves as intended.
foundation/console/about_command.go (1)
26-30: Verify untested paths: constructor usage
While the constructor is straightforward, static analysis indicates that certain lines in your command (e.g., signature, description, flags) are reportedly not covered by tests. Consider adding a small test to confirm that calling “Signature()” and “Description()” matches the expected strings, and that “Extend()” includes the "only" flag.
contracts/foundation/application.go (2)
31-34: Struct AboutInfo is succinct
Defining Key and Value fields is an excellent design for flexible info display. No issues spotted here.
71-72: Interface extension is consistent
Adding About(section, details) is well-aligned with the new about command. Ensure that any custom usage is properly documented for external implementers.
foundation/application.go (1)
58-58: Boot method coverage
Static analysis warns that this line (registering the new about command) is not covered by tests, likely because Boot is not explicitly tested. You may consider a high-level integration test that calls Boot and verifies that the command was registered in Artisan.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 58-58: foundation/application.go#L58
Added line #L58 was not covered by tests
mocks/foundation/Application.go (4)
71-74: Looks good.
This mock method correctly associates the About call with the provided parameters in sync with the real interface.
76-80: Retains standard generated naming convention.
This new type name, Application_About_Call, adheres to the mockery-generated pattern and doesn't conflict with existing definitions.
81-87: Enhances test flexibility.
Using an About method in the Application_Expecter struct permits fine-grained test verification on the About call, aligning well with the new feature.
88-104: Robust argument capture and customization.
The Run, Return, and RunAndReturn methods provide a comprehensive mechanism to customize and validate call behavior for tests. No issues found.
Co-authored-by: Wenbo Han <hwbrzzl@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Wenbo Han <hwbrzzl@gmail.com>
|
Review Ready |
📑 Description
This PR introduces an
artisan aboutcommand to display system environment and application configuration details.A new
Aboutfunction allows adding custom sections and entries to the about command output and can be easily called in the Boot method of a ServiceProvider for seamless integration.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Aboutcommand to display application information.AboutInfostruct.Bug Fixes
Aboutcommand.Tests
AboutCommandfunctionality and related methods to ensure correct behavior.Chores
Applicationtype to support the newAboutmethod.✅ Checks