introduce the network status alert system #3532
Conversation
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes introduce a new environment configuration for testing, including a 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 (
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## staging #3532 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 11.62% 29.88% +18.26%
============================================
Files 128 184 +56
Lines 17031 24699 +7668
Branches 3240 3258 +18
============================================
+ Hits 1980 7382 +5402
- Misses 15039 17195 +2156
- Partials 12 122 +110
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
|
Device registry changes in this PR available for preview here |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (17)
src/device-registry/config/tests-config.js (1)
1-1: Excellent addition of test-specific environment configuration!The introduction of a dedicated
.env.testfile for managing test environment variables is a commendable practice. It promotes a clear separation of concerns between different execution contexts, which is crucial for maintaining a robust and reliable testing infrastructure.A few points to consider for potential enhancements:
Path Flexibility: The current implementation uses a hardcoded path. While this works, it might be beneficial to consider using a more dynamic approach, such as
process.env.NODE_ENVto determine the appropriate.envfile. This could provide greater flexibility as the project structure evolves.Error Handling: It may be prudent to implement some form of error handling or logging in case the
.env.testfile is not found. This could help in quickly identifying configuration issues during the test setup phase.Consistency: Ensure that this configuration file is consistently used across all test files. This might involve updating the test runner configuration or individual test files to import this configuration.
These suggestions aim to further solidify the robustness of your testing environment. Keep up the excellent work in maintaining a clean and organized codebase!
src/device-registry/.env.test (2)
1-1: Consider using a more secure approach for managing test secrets.While using a hardcoded secret for testing is common, it's important to ensure that this practice doesn't introduce security vulnerabilities. Consider the following suggestions:
- Use environment-specific secrets: Implement a mechanism to load different secrets for different environments (e.g., test, staging, production).
- Utilize secret management tools: Consider using tools like HashiCorp Vault or AWS Secrets Manager for more secure secret management, even in test environments.
- Regularly rotate secrets: Implement a process to regularly update the test secret to minimize potential risks.
Would you like me to provide an example of how to implement environment-specific secrets loading?
3-3: Approved: Consistent Redis server configuration for development.The use of a separate REDIS_SERVER_DEV variable set to localhost (127.0.0.1) is consistent with the REDIS_SERVER setting and follows good configuration management practices.
To further improve configuration management, consider implementing a more robust environment-based configuration system. For example:
const redisConfig = { test: '127.0.0.1', development: '127.0.0.1', staging: 'staging-redis-server', production: 'production-redis-server' }; const REDIS_SERVER = redisConfig[process.env.NODE_ENV] || '127.0.0.1';This approach would allow for easier management of configurations across different environments while maintaining the current functionality.
src/device-registry/bin/jobs/test/ut_check-network-status-job.js (5)
1-7: Imports and setup look good, with a suggestion for improvement.The imports and initial setup are well-structured and appropriate for the testing environment. The use of module-alias indicates a custom import structure, which is a good practice for maintaining a clean and organized codebase.
Consider grouping the imports by their origin (external libraries, internal modules) for better readability. Here's a suggested order:
- External libraries (sinon, chai, log4js)
- Internal modules (@models/Device, @utils/log, @bin/jobs/check-network-status-job)
- module-alias registration
This minor reorganization can enhance code readability and maintainability.
9-32: Test suite setup is well-structured, with a suggestion for error handling.The test suite setup demonstrates good practices:
- Using beforeEach and afterEach hooks ensures a clean state for each test.
- Stubbing external dependencies (logger methods and DeviceModel.find) properly isolates the tests.
Consider adding error handling in the afterEach hook:
afterEach(() => { try { sinon.restore(); } catch (error) { console.error('Error during sinon.restore():', error); } });This addition would prevent potential issues if sinon.restore() fails, ensuring that subsequent tests are not affected by incomplete cleanup.
34-56: Well-structured tests with room for enhancement in assertions.Both test cases effectively cover important scenarios:
- The "No devices found" case is well-handled and verified.
- The offline percentage calculation and logging for an acceptable status are appropriately tested.
For the second test case, consider enhancing the assertions:
- Verify the exact number of devices checked.
- Assert the specific offline percentage calculated.
Here's a suggested improvement:
it("should calculate offline percentage correctly and log acceptable status", async () => { const mockDevices = [{ isOnline: true }, { isOnline: false }]; findStub.returns({ lean: () => ({ limit: () => ({ skip: () => Promise.resolve(mockDevices), }), }), }); await checkNetworkStatus(); expect(findStub.calledOnce).to.be.true; expect(loggerStub.calledOnce).to.be.true; expect(loggerStub.firstCall.args[0]).to.equal("✅ Network status is acceptable: 50.00% offline"); // Additional assertions expect(mockDevices.length).to.equal(2); const offlinePercentage = (mockDevices.filter(d => !d.isOnline).length / mockDevices.length) * 100; expect(offlinePercentage).to.equal(50); });These additional assertions provide more comprehensive coverage and make the test more robust against potential future changes.
58-77: Good edge case coverage with room for more precise assertions.This test case effectively covers the scenario where more than 60% of devices are offline, which is a crucial edge case for the network status alert system.
To enhance the test's precision and reliability, consider the following improvements:
- Use a constant for the threshold percentage (60% in this case).
- Calculate the expected offline percentage explicitly.
- Add assertions for the exact number of devices and the calculated percentage.
Here's a suggested refactoring:
it("should calculate offline percentage correctly and log warning if more than 60% are offline", async () => { const OFFLINE_THRESHOLD = 60; const mockDevices = [ { isOnline: false }, { isOnline: false }, { isOnline: true }, ]; findStub.returns({ lean: () => ({ limit: () => ({ skip: () => Promise.resolve(mockDevices), }), }), }); await checkNetworkStatus(); const offlineCount = mockDevices.filter(d => !d.isOnline).length; const offlinePercentage = (offlineCount / mockDevices.length) * 100; const expectedMessage = `⚠️ More than ${OFFLINE_THRESHOLD}% of devices are offline: ${offlinePercentage.toFixed(2)}%`; expect(findStub.calledOnce).to.be.true; expect(loggerStub.calledOnce).to.be.true; expect(loggerStub.firstCall.args[0]).to.equal(expectedMessage); expect(mockDevices.length).to.equal(3); expect(offlinePercentage).to.be.greaterThan(OFFLINE_THRESHOLD); });These changes make the test more robust and self-documenting, clearly showing the relationship between the input data and the expected output.
79-88: Error handling test is well-implemented, with a suggestion for enhancement.This test case effectively verifies the error handling capability of the
checkNetworkStatusfunction when a database error occurs. It's crucial to ensure that the function gracefully handles unexpected errors and logs them appropriately.To make this test even more robust, consider adding the following enhancements:
- Verify that the error logger is called instead of the info logger.
- Ensure that the function doesn't throw an unhandled exception.
Here's a suggested improvement:
it("should handle errors gracefully", async () => { const errorMessage = "Database error"; findStub.throws(new Error(errorMessage)); const errorLoggerStub = sinon.stub(log4js.getLogger(), "error"); await expect(checkNetworkStatus()).to.be.fulfilled; expect(findStub.calledOnce).to.be.true; expect(errorLoggerStub.calledOnce).to.be.true; expect(errorLoggerStub.firstCall.args[0]).to.equal(`Error checking network status: ${errorMessage}`); expect(loggerStub.called).to.be.false; // Ensure info logger wasn't called });These additions will verify that:
- The function doesn't throw an unhandled exception (using
to.be.fulfilled).- The error is logged using the error logger, not the info logger.
- The error message is correctly formatted in the log.
This approach provides a more comprehensive test of the error handling mechanism.
src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js (1)
11-30: Well-structured setup and teardown!The additions to the beforeEach and afterEach blocks enhance the test environment's consistency and reliability. Stubbing the logger's error method and configuring log4js for each test ensures a clean slate for error logging assertions. The use of sinon.restore() in the afterEach block is an excellent practice for maintaining a clean test environment.
A minor suggestion to consider:
Consider extracting the log4js configuration to a separate helper function. This could improve readability and make it easier to reuse the configuration in other test files if needed. For example:
function configureTestLogger() { log4js.configure(log4jsConfiguration); } beforeEach(() => { // ... other setup configureTestLogger(); });This approach would make the beforeEach block more concise and potentially more reusable.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 24-24: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L24
Added line #L24 was not covered by testssrc/device-registry/package.json (1)
8-16: Uniform memory allocation increase across all environments.The consistent increase of
--max-old-space-sizeto 4096 MB across all environments (staging, development, and production) is noted. This uniformity can simplify configuration management and ensure consistent behavior across different environments.Consider the following suggestions:
Evaluate whether all environments require the same memory allocation. Development environments might function with lower allocations, potentially conserving resources.
Implement environment-specific memory allocations using environment variables. This approach allows for more flexible configuration:
-"dev": "cross-env NODE_ENV=development nodemon --max-old-space-size=4096 ./bin", +"dev": "cross-env NODE_ENV=development nodemon --max-old-space-size=$NODE_MEMORY_LIMIT ./bin",Then, set
NODE_MEMORY_LIMITin your environment configuration files (e.g.,.env.development,.env.production) to the appropriate values for each environment.src/device-registry/bin/server.js (4)
28-28: Excellent addition of the network status check job!The new import for the
check-network-status-jobis well-placed and consistent with the existing code structure. It's great to see the network monitoring capabilities being enhanced.For improved consistency and maintainability, consider using the
@binalias in the import path, similar to the other job imports. This would make the codebase more uniform and easier to navigate.Here's a suggested minor refinement:
-require("@bin/jobs/check-network-status-job"); +require("@bin/jobs/check-network-status-job");This change aligns perfectly with the existing import style in the file.
Line range hint
1-27: Consider standardizing import styles for improved consistencyI noticed that the file uses a mix of CommonJS (
require) and ES6 (import) module systems. While this works, standardizing to one style could improve code consistency and maintainability.Consider migrating all imports to use ES6
importsyntax. This would make the codebase more modern and consistent. Here's an example of how the first few imports could look:import http from 'http'; import express from 'express'; import constants from '@config/constants'; import path from 'path'; import cookieParser from 'cookie-parser'; // ... continue for other importsThis change would require updating your Node.js version and package.json to support ES modules, but it could lead to a more consistent and modern codebase.
Line range hint
78-134: Consider refactoring error handling for improved maintainabilityThe error handling logic is comprehensive, which is excellent. However, the current structure with multiple
if-elsestatements could be refactored to improve readability and maintainability.Consider creating an error handling map or using a switch statement. This could make the code more concise and easier to extend. Here's a potential refactor:
const errorHandlers = { res.status(404).json({ success: false, message: "This endpoint does not exist", errors: { message: err.message }, }); }, logger.error(`Bad request error --- ${jsonify(err)}`); res.status(400).json({ success: false, message: "Bad request error", errors: { message: err.message }, }); }, // ... other status codes ... }; app.use((err, req, res, next) => { if (!res.headersSent) { const handler = errorHandlers[err.status] || errorHandlers.default; handler(err, res); } else { logger.info(`🍻🍻 HTTP response already sent to the client -- ${jsonify(err)}`); } });This approach could make it easier to add or modify error handling for specific status codes in the future.
Line range hint
190-194: Ensure consistent environment variable handlingI noticed a small inconsistency in how the environment is determined. While
process.env.NODE_ENVis used earlier in the file, here it's checked for emptiness and defaulted to 'production'.For consistency, consider using the
isDevandisProdvariables that were defined earlier in the file. This would make the environment handling more uniform throughout the code:let ENV = isProd ? "production" : (isDev ? "development" : process.env.NODE_ENV || "production");This change ensures that the environment determination is consistent with the rest of the file and provides a fallback if
NODE_ENVis set to an unexpected value.src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js (3)
44-46: Define the offline threshold as a constantUsing a magic number for the offline percentage threshold can make the code less maintainable. Defining it as a constant improves readability and allows for easy adjustments in the future.
+const OFFLINE_THRESHOLD = 60; // Percentage ... -if (offlinePercentage > 60) { +if (offlinePercentage > OFFLINE_THRESHOLD) {🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 44-44: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L44
Added line #L44 was not covered by tests
47-58: Avoid using emojis in log messagesWhile emojis can enhance readability, they may not be supported in all logging systems and could cause parsing issues. Consider using standard text to ensure compatibility and professionalism.
-logText( - `⚠️💔😥 More than 60% of devices are offline: ${offlinePercentage.toFixed( - 2 - )}%` -); +logText( + `Warning: More than 60% of devices are offline: ${offlinePercentage.toFixed( + 2 + )}%` +);🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 47-47: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L47
Added line #L47 was not covered by tests
[warning] 53-53: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L53
Added line #L53 was not covered by tests
59-69: Remove commented-out code or provide contextThe block of commented-out code may lead to confusion. If it's no longer needed, removing it can improve clarity. If it's meant for future use, adding a comment to explain its purpose would be helpful.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (12)
- src/device-registry/.env.test (1 hunks)
- src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js (1 hunks)
- src/device-registry/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js (1 hunks)
- src/device-registry/bin/jobs/new-store-readings-job.js (1 hunks)
- src/device-registry/bin/jobs/store-readings-job.js (1 hunks)
- src/device-registry/bin/jobs/store-signals-job.js (1 hunks)
- src/device-registry/bin/jobs/test/ut_check-network-status-job.js (1 hunks)
- src/device-registry/bin/server.js (1 hunks)
- src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js (1 hunks)
- src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js (1 hunks)
- src/device-registry/config/tests-config.js (1 hunks)
- src/device-registry/package.json (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (4)
- src/device-registry/bin/jobs/kafka-consumer.js
- src/device-registry/bin/jobs/new-store-readings-job.js
- src/device-registry/bin/jobs/store-readings-job.js
- src/device-registry/bin/jobs/store-signals-job.js
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js
[warning] 13-16: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L13-L16
Added lines #L13 - L16 were not covered by tests
[warning] 18-18: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L18
Added line #L18 was not covered by tests
[warning] 20-20: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L20
Added line #L20 was not covered by tests
[warning] 28-28: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L28
Added line #L28 was not covered by tests
[warning] 31-32: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L31-L32
Added lines #L31 - L32 were not covered by tests
[warning] 35-35: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L35
Added line #L35 was not covered by tests
[warning] 39-41: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L39-L41
Added lines #L39 - L41 were not covered by tests
[warning] 44-44: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L44
Added line #L44 was not covered by tests
[warning] 47-47: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L47
Added line #L47 was not covered by tests
[warning] 53-53: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L53
Added line #L53 was not covered by tests
[warning] 71-73: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L71-L73
Added lines #L71 - L73 were not covered by testssrc/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js
[warning] 24-24: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L24
Added line #L24 was not covered by tests
[warning] 33-33: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L33
Added line #L33 was not covered by tests
[warning] 35-36: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L35-L36
Added lines #L35 - L36 were not covered by tests
[warning] 40-41: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L40-L41
Added lines #L40 - L41 were not covered by tests
[warning] 43-43: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L43
Added line #L43 was not covered by tests
[warning] 45-45: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L45
Added line #L45 was not covered by tests
[warning] 54-56: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L54-L56
Added lines #L54 - L56 were not covered by tests
[warning] 58-58: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L58
Added line #L58 was not covered by tests
[warning] 60-60: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L60
Added line #L60 was not covered by tests
[warning] 69-69: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L69
Added line #L69 was not covered by tests
[warning] 72-73: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L72-L73
Added lines #L72 - L73 were not covered by tests
[warning] 75-75: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L75
Added line #L75 was not covered by testssrc/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js
[warning] 27-28: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js#L27-L28
Added lines #L27 - L28 were not covered by tests
[warning] 42-42: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js#L42
Added line #L42 was not covered by tests
[warning] 44-44: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js#L44
Added line #L44 was not covered by tests
[warning] 46-46: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js#L46
Added line #L46 was not covered by tests
[warning] 53-53: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js#L53
Added line #L53 was not covered by tests
[warning] 57-58: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js#L57-L58
Added lines #L57 - L58 were not covered by tests
[warning] 60-60: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js#L60
Added line #L60 was not covered by tests
🔇 Additional comments (9)
src/device-registry/.env.test (2)
4-4: Approved: Non-standard Redis port for testing environment.Using a non-standard port (4674) for Redis in the test environment is a good practice as it helps avoid conflicts with default Redis instances or other services that might be running on the standard port.
To ensure consistency and avoid potential conflicts, consider running the following verification:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the consistency of Redis port usage in test files # Test: Search for the Redis port in test files rg --type test '4674' src/ # Test: Check for any other Redis port usage in test files rg --type test '(?<!4674)\b\d{4}\b' src/This will help identify any inconsistencies in Redis port usage across test files and highlight any potential conflicts with other port numbers.
2-2: Approved: Local Redis server configuration for testing.The use of localhost (127.0.0.1) for the Redis server in a test environment is appropriate. This configuration allows for isolated testing without affecting external systems.
To ensure this test configuration doesn't accidentally propagate to other environments, consider running the following verification:
This will help identify any instances where the localhost Redis configuration might have been accidentally used in non-test files.
✅ Verification successful
Action Required: Verify Redis configuration exclusion in non-test files.
The previous verification script encountered errors due to unrecognized file types and unsupported regex patterns. To ensure that the Redis server address (
127.0.0.1) isn't hardcoded in non-test files, please run the following updated verification script:This script searches the
src/directory for any occurrences of127.0.0.1while excluding typical test directories and files. This will help ensure that the Redis configuration is appropriately isolated to the test environment.
Verified: Redis configuration is appropriately isolated.
The Redis server is correctly configured to use localhost (
127.0.0.1) in the test environment, and no hardcoded instances are found in non-test code files.The occurrences of
127.0.0.1found inREADME.mdfiles are within documentation URLs and do not impact the operational configuration.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the Redis server configuration is not hardcoded in non-test files # Test: Search for hardcoded Redis server addresses in non-test files rg --type-not test '127\.0\.0\.1' src/Length of output: 321
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the Redis server configuration is not hardcoded in non-test files # Search for '127.0.0.1' in src/ excluding common test directories and files rg '127\.0\.0\.1' src/ --glob '!**/__tests__/**' --glob '!**/*.test.*' --glob '!**/tests/**'Length of output: 311
src/device-registry/bin/jobs/test/ut_check-network-status-job.js (1)
1-88: Comprehensive test suite with room for minor enhancements.This unit test file for the
checkNetworkStatusfunction is well-structured and covers a wide range of scenarios, including normal operation, edge cases, and error handling. The use of Mocha, Chai, and Sinon demonstrates a solid understanding of JavaScript testing practices.The test cases effectively verify the core functionality of the network status alert system, which is crucial for maintaining the reliability and performance of the device registry service. By thoroughly testing the offline percentage calculations and the corresponding log messages, these tests help ensure that the alert system will accurately report network status issues.
While the current implementation is strong, the suggested improvements throughout the review will further enhance the precision and robustness of the tests. These enhancements focus on:
- More explicit assertions
- Better error handling
- Increased test coverage for edge cases
Implementing these suggestions will result in a more maintainable and reliable test suite, which is essential for the long-term success of the network status alert system.
Remember, comprehensive unit testing is a cornerstone of building reliable software systems, especially for critical components like network status monitoring. Keep up the good work in maintaining and improving these tests as the system evolves.
src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js (3)
3-10: Excellent updates to imports and test suite naming!The changes to the import statements and the renaming of the test suite demonstrate a thoughtful approach to improving the organization and clarity of the test file. The addition of log4js and the updated paths for kafkaConsumer and createServer align well with the overall changes in the application structure. The new test suite name, "Application Initialization," provides a more accurate description of the tests' focus.
68-81: Comprehensive error handling test for application startup!The addition of this test case for handling errors during application startup is a valuable enhancement to the test suite. It ensures that unexpected errors are properly logged, which is crucial for maintaining the reliability and debuggability of the application.
Regarding the coverage warnings:
The static analysis tool indicates that several lines in this test case (69, 72-73, 75) are not covered. This appears to be a false positive, as these lines are part of the test case itself. To verify this, we can run the following command:
If these lines are present in the output, it confirms that they are indeed part of the test case and should be covered when the tests are run.
A minor suggestion:
Consider adding a comment explaining why you're catching and ignoring the error in the
main().catch(() => {})line. This would improve code readability and make the intent clearer for future developers. For example:// Catch and ignore the error as we're testing the error logging, not the error propagation await main().catch(() => {});✅ Verification successful
Coverage Verification Successful!
The shell script results confirm that all highlighted lines (69, 72-73, and 75) are present in the
ut_index.jstest file. This indicates that the coverage warnings are false positives and that the new test case for handling errors during application startup is correctly accounted for in the test suite.Great job on enhancing the test coverage and ensuring that these critical lines are properly tested!
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify test coverage for the startup error handling test # Test: Check if the lines are present in the test file rg -n "const startupError = new Error\(\"Startup error\"\)" src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js rg -n "sinon\.stub\(console, \"error\"\)" src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js rg -n "await main\(\)\.catch\(\(\) => \{\}\)" src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js rg -n "expect\(" src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.jsLength of output: 745
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 69-69: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L69
Added line #L69 was not covered by tests
[warning] 72-73: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L72-L73
Added lines #L72 - L73 were not covered by tests
[warning] 75-75: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L75
Added line #L75 was not covered by tests
32-36: Improved focus on core initialization steps!The refactored test case now clearly verifies the essential steps of the application initialization process. Explicitly calling the main function and checking for the invocation of kafkaConsumer and createServer provides a more direct and understandable test.
Regarding the coverage warning:
The static analysis tool indicates that lines 33, 35, and 36 are not covered by tests. However, this appears to be a false positive since these lines are explicitly part of the test case. To verify this, we can run the following command:
If these lines are present in the output, it confirms that they are indeed part of the test case and should be covered when the tests are run.
✅ Verification successful
Coverage Confirmed as Sufficient!
The analysis of
ut_index.jsshows that the key test assertions on lines 35 and 36 are present and covered by the test case. Additionally, theawait main()function is invoked within a.catchblock, ensuring its execution is accounted for. The coverage warning appears to be a false positive.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify test coverage for the specific lines in question # Test: Check if the lines are present in the test file rg -n "await main\(\)" src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js rg -n "expect\(kafkaConsumerStub\.calledOnce\)\.to\.be\.true" src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js rg -n "expect\(createServerStub\.calledOnce\)\.to\.be\.true" src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.jsLength of output: 745
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 33-33: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L33
Added line #L33 was not covered by tests
[warning] 35-36: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L35-L36
Added lines #L35 - L36 were not covered by testssrc/device-registry/package.json (2)
18-18: New configuration file added to test command.The addition of
--require config/tests-config.jsto the test command is a positive step towards more structured test configurations. This change allows for centralized setup of the test environment, potentially improving consistency and maintainability of tests.To ensure this change doesn't introduce any unintended side effects, please run the following script to examine the contents of the new configuration file:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the contents of the new test configuration file # Test: Display the contents of the new configuration file cat config/tests-config.js # Test: Check if the new configuration file is referenced in other test files rg --type js "require.*config/tests-config"Additionally, consider documenting the purpose and contents of
config/tests-config.jsin your project's testing documentation to ensure all developers are aware of its impact on the test environment.
7-7: Increased memory allocation for production environment.The change to increase the
--max-old-space-sizefrom 1024 to 4096 MB for the production environment is noted. This adjustment can potentially improve performance for memory-intensive operations.To ensure this change is justified, please run the following script to check the historical memory usage of the application:
Additionally, consider implementing memory usage monitoring in production to validate the necessity of this increase and to prevent potential over-allocation of resources.
✅ Verification successful
Memory Allocation Increase Verified
No memory-related issues were detected in the application's logs. The increase to
--max-old-space-size=4096MB has been approved. It's recommended to implement memory usage monitoring in the production environment to ensure optimal resource utilization.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the necessity of increased memory allocation # Test: Search for any logging of memory usage or out-of-memory errors rg --type log "memory usage|out of memory|heap"Length of output: 129
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Comprehensive search for memory usage and out-of-memory errors in existing log files # Search for memory-related logs in all accessible log files rg --type log "memory usage|out of memory|heap" || echo "No memory-related logs found."Length of output: 267
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for memory usage and out-of-memory errors in all log-related files # Find all files with 'log' in their filename and search for memory-related patterns fd -i -e log | xargs rg "memory usage|out of memory|heap" || echo "No memory-related logs found."Length of output: 128
src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js (1)
71-73: Ensure error logging doesn't expose sensitive informationLogging detailed error messages and stack traces is useful for debugging but may expose sensitive information in production environments. Consider refining the logging strategy to protect sensitive data.
Would you like to review the logging configuration to ensure compliance with our security policies?
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 71-73: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L71-L73
Added lines #L71 - L73 were not covered by tests
| it("should log an error if starting Kafka fails", async () => { | ||
| const errorMessage = "Kafka connection error"; | ||
| kafkaConsumerStub.rejects(new Error(errorMessage)); // Simulate an error from kafkaConsumer | ||
|
|
||
| await main(); // Call the main function | ||
|
|
||
| expect( | ||
| loggerStub.calledWithMatch( | ||
| sinon.match.string, | ||
| sinon.match({ message: errorMessage }) | ||
| ) | ||
| ).to.be.true; | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it("should log an error if creating the server fails", async () => { | ||
| const errorMessage = "Server creation error"; | ||
| kafkaConsumerStub.resolves(); // Ensure kafkaConsumer resolves | ||
| createServerStub.throws(new Error(errorMessage)); // Simulate an error from createServer | ||
|
|
||
| await main(); // Call the main function | ||
|
|
||
| expect( | ||
| loggerStub.calledWithMatch( | ||
| sinon.match.string, | ||
| sinon.match({ message: errorMessage }) | ||
| ) | ||
| ).to.be.true; | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Excellent addition of error handling test cases!
The new test cases for Kafka connection errors and server creation errors significantly enhance the robustness of the test suite. They ensure that the application properly logs errors in these critical scenarios, which is crucial for maintaining system reliability and ease of debugging.
A suggestion for further improvement:
Consider parameterizing these error tests to reduce code duplication and make it easier to add more error scenarios in the future. Here's an example of how you could refactor this:
const errorScenarios = [
{ name: 'Kafka connection', errorSource: 'kafkaConsumer', errorMessage: 'Kafka connection error' },
{ name: 'Server creation', errorSource: 'createServer', errorMessage: 'Server creation error' }
];
errorScenarios.forEach(({ name, errorSource, errorMessage }) => {
it(`should log an error if ${name} fails`, async () => {
if (errorSource === 'kafkaConsumer') {
kafkaConsumerStub.rejects(new Error(errorMessage));
} else {
kafkaConsumerStub.resolves();
createServerStub.throws(new Error(errorMessage));
}
await main();
expect(
loggerStub.calledWithMatch(
sinon.match.string,
sinon.match({ message: errorMessage })
)
).to.be.true;
});
});This approach would make it easier to add new error scenarios and reduce the likelihood of inconsistencies between similar test cases.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 40-41: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L40-L41
Added lines #L40 - L41 were not covered by tests
[warning] 43-43: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L43
Added line #L43 was not covered by tests
[warning] 45-45: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L45
Added line #L45 was not covered by tests
[warning] 54-56: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L54-L56
Added lines #L54 - L56 were not covered by tests
[warning] 58-58: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L58
Added line #L58 was not covered by tests
[warning] 60-60: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js#L60
Added line #L60 was not covered by tests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please create a new Github issue for this suggestion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Baalmart, I've created a new GitHub issue for this suggestion: #3534. This will help track the refactoring of the unit tests to parameterize error scenarios and enhance maintainability.
🔗 Analysis chain
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Create a new GitHub issue for the refactoring suggestion
gh issue create \
--title "Refactor unit tests to parameterize error scenarios in src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_index.js" \
--body "As requested by @Baalmart, consider refactoring the unit tests to use parameterized error scenarios to reduce code duplication and enhance maintainability.
See the discussion at PR #3532: https://github.com/airqo-platform/AirQo-api/pull/3532 and the specific comment: https://github.com/airqo-platform/AirQo-api/pull/3532#discussion_r1779453497." \
--assignee Baalmart
Length of output: 555
| const checkNetworkStatus = async () => { | ||
| try { | ||
| let totalDevices = 0; | ||
| let offlineDevicesCount = 0; | ||
| let pageNumber = 0; | ||
|
|
||
| while (true) { | ||
| // Fetch a batch of devices | ||
| const devices = await DeviceModel("airqo") | ||
| .find({}, "isOnline _id") | ||
| .lean() | ||
| .limit(BATCH_SIZE) | ||
| .skip(pageNumber * BATCH_SIZE); | ||
|
|
||
| if (devices.length === 0) break; // Exit loop if no more devices | ||
|
|
||
| totalDevices += devices.length; | ||
|
|
||
| // Count offline devices in the current batch | ||
| offlineDevicesCount += devices.filter( | ||
| (device) => device.isOnline === false | ||
| ).length; | ||
|
|
||
| pageNumber++; // Move to the next batch | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (totalDevices === 0) { | ||
| logText("No devices found"); | ||
| logger.info("No devices found."); | ||
| return; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const offlinePercentage = (offlineDevicesCount / totalDevices) * 100; | ||
|
|
||
| if (offlinePercentage > 60) { | ||
| logText( | ||
| `⚠️💔😥 More than 60% of devices are offline: ${offlinePercentage.toFixed( | ||
| 2 | ||
| )}%` | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| logger.warn( | ||
| `⚠️💔😥 More than 60% of devices are offline: ${offlinePercentage.toFixed( | ||
| 2 | ||
| )}%` | ||
| ); | ||
| } else { | ||
| // logText( | ||
| // `✅ Network status is acceptable: ${offlinePercentage.toFixed( | ||
| // 2 | ||
| // )}% offline` | ||
| // ); | ||
| // logger.info( | ||
| // `✅ Network status is acceptable: ${offlinePercentage.toFixed( | ||
| // 2 | ||
| // )}% offline` | ||
| // ); | ||
| } | ||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| logText(`Error checking network status: ${error.message}`); | ||
| logger.error(`Error checking network status: ${error.message}`); | ||
| logger.error(`Stack trace: ${error.stack}`); | ||
| } | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider adding unit tests for the checkNetworkStatus function
The checkNetworkStatus function is a critical part of the new network status alert system but currently lacks unit tests. Adding tests will improve reliability and help catch potential issues early.
Would you like assistance in writing these tests or should we open a GitHub issue to track this task?
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 13-16: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L13-L16
Added lines #L13 - L16 were not covered by tests
[warning] 18-18: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L18
Added line #L18 was not covered by tests
[warning] 20-20: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L20
Added line #L20 was not covered by tests
[warning] 28-28: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L28
Added line #L28 was not covered by tests
[warning] 31-32: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L31-L32
Added lines #L31 - L32 were not covered by tests
[warning] 35-35: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L35
Added line #L35 was not covered by tests
[warning] 39-41: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L39-L41
Added lines #L39 - L41 were not covered by tests
[warning] 44-44: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L44
Added line #L44 was not covered by tests
[warning] 47-47: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L47
Added line #L47 was not covered by tests
[warning] 53-53: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L53
Added line #L53 was not covered by tests
[warning] 71-73: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L71-L73
Added lines #L71 - L73 were not covered by tests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please create a new Github issue for this suggestion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Baalmart, I've created a new GitHub issue to track the addition of unit tests for the checkNetworkStatus function. You can find it here: #3535
🔗 Analysis chain
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Create a new GitHub issue to track the addition of unit tests for the checkNetworkStatus function
gh issue create \
--title "Add unit tests for checkNetworkStatus function" \
--body "The \`checkNetworkStatus\` function introduced in PR [#3532](https://github.com/airqo-platform/AirQo-api/pull/3532) currently lacks unit tests.
This issue was raised during code review: https://github.com/airqo-platform/AirQo-api/pull/3532#discussion_r1779453498
Requested by @Baalmart." \
--assignee Baalmart
Length of output: 446
| while (true) { | ||
| // Fetch a batch of devices | ||
| const devices = await DeviceModel("airqo") | ||
| .find({}, "isOnline _id") | ||
| .lean() | ||
| .limit(BATCH_SIZE) | ||
| .skip(pageNumber * BATCH_SIZE); | ||
|
|
||
| if (devices.length === 0) break; // Exit loop if no more devices | ||
|
|
||
| totalDevices += devices.length; | ||
|
|
||
| // Count offline devices in the current batch | ||
| offlineDevicesCount += devices.filter( | ||
| (device) => device.isOnline === false | ||
| ).length; | ||
|
|
||
| pageNumber++; // Move to the next batch | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Optimize device counting with database aggregation
Fetching all devices in batches and counting offline ones in application code can be resource-intensive. Using a database aggregation pipeline to perform counting directly in MongoDB can enhance performance and reduce memory usage.
For example:
const result = await DeviceModel("airqo").aggregate([
{
$group: {
_id: null,
totalDevices: { $sum: 1 },
offlineDevicesCount: {
$sum: {
$cond: [{ $eq: ["$isOnline", false] }, 1, 0],
},
},
},
},
]);
if (result.length === 0 || result[0].totalDevices === 0) {
logText("No devices found");
logger.info("No devices found.");
return;
}
const { totalDevices, offlineDevicesCount } = result[0];
const offlinePercentage = (offlineDevicesCount / totalDevices) * 100;
// Proceed with existing logic...🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 18-18: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L18
Added line #L18 was not covered by tests
[warning] 20-20: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L20
Added line #L20 was not covered by tests
[warning] 28-28: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L28
Added line #L28 was not covered by tests
[warning] 31-32: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L31-L32
Added lines #L31 - L32 were not covered by tests
[warning] 35-35: src/device-registry/bin/jobs/check-network-status-job.js#L35
Added line #L35 was not covered by tests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
create a new Github issue for this suggestion please.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Baalmart, the GitHub issue has been created as per your request: #3538.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Create a new GitHub issue for the suggestion
gh issue create \
--title "Optimize device counting with database aggregation in check-network-status-job.js" \
--body "During the code review for [PR #3532](https://github.com/airqo-platform/AirQo-api/pull/3532), a suggestion was made to optimize device counting with database aggregation in \`check-network-status-job.js\`. See the [discussion](https://github.com/airqo-platform/AirQo-api/pull/3532#discussion_r1779453499) for details. Requested by @Baalmart." \
--assignee Baalmart
Length of output: 534
| const logTextStub = sinon.stub(console, "log"); | ||
|
|
||
| server.listen(3000); // Start listening on port 3000 | ||
|
|
||
| expect( | ||
| logTextStub.calledWith( | ||
| `The server is running on the ${process.env.NODE_ENV || | ||
| "production"} environment` | ||
| ) | ||
| ).to.be.true; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider stubbing logger methods instead of console.log
In this test, you are stubbing console.log, but your application uses log4js for logging. For consistency and to ensure the test accurately reflects the application's behavior, consider stubbing the logger's info method (log4js.getLogger().info) instead of console.log.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 42-42: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js#L42
Added line #L42 was not covered by tests
[warning] 44-44: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js#L44
Added line #L44 was not covered by tests
[warning] 46-46: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js#L46
Added line #L46 was not covered by tests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
create a new Github issue for this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Baalmart, I've created a new GitHub issue as per your request to track this suggestion: #3537.
🔗 Analysis chain
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Create a new GitHub issue as requested by Baalmart
gh issue create \
--title "Consider stubbing logger methods instead of console.log in tests" \
--body "As suggested by [Baalmart](https://github.com/Baalmart) in [this comment](https://github.com/airqo-platform/AirQo-api/pull/3532#discussion_r1779453500), we should consider stubbing the logger's \`info\` method (\`log4js.getLogger().info\`) instead of \`console.log\` in our tests to ensure consistency and accurate reflection of the application's behavior.
PR: https://github.com/airqo-platform/AirQo-api/pull/3532
" \
--assignee Baalmart \
--repo airqo-platform/AirQo-api
Length of output: 626
| it("should start the server and log the running message", (done) => { | ||
| const logTextStub = sinon.stub(console, "log"); | ||
|
|
||
| server.listen(3000); // Start listening on port 3000 | ||
|
|
||
| expect( | ||
| logTextStub.calledWith( | ||
| `The server is running on the ${process.env.NODE_ENV || | ||
| "production"} environment` | ||
| ) | ||
| ).to.be.true; | ||
|
|
||
| done(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Simplify the test by removing unnecessary done callback
The test is synchronous and does not perform any asynchronous operations. Therefore, the done callback is unnecessary and can be omitted to simplify the test.
Apply this diff to remove the done parameter and the done(); call:
-it("should start the server and log the running message", (done) => {
+it("should start the server and log the running message", () => {
const logTextStub = sinon.stub(console, "log");
server.listen(3000); // Start listening on port 3000
expect(
logTextStub.calledWith(
`The server is running on the ${process.env.NODE_ENV ||
"production"} environment`
)
).to.be.true;
- done();
});📝 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.
| it("should start the server and log the running message", (done) => { | |
| const logTextStub = sinon.stub(console, "log"); | |
| server.listen(3000); // Start listening on port 3000 | |
| expect( | |
| logTextStub.calledWith( | |
| `The server is running on the ${process.env.NODE_ENV || | |
| "production"} environment` | |
| ) | |
| ).to.be.true; | |
| done(); | |
| it("should start the server and log the running message", () => { | |
| const logTextStub = sinon.stub(console, "log"); | |
| server.listen(3000); // Start listening on port 3000 | |
| expect( | |
| logTextStub.calledWith( | |
| `The server is running on the ${process.env.NODE_ENV || | |
| "production"} environment` | |
| ) | |
| ).to.be.true; | |
| }); |
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 42-42: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js#L42
Added line #L42 was not covered by tests
[warning] 44-44: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js#L44
Added line #L44 was not covered by tests
[warning] 46-46: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js#L46
Added line #L46 was not covered by tests
[warning] 53-53: src/device-registry/bin/test/ut_server.js#L53
Added line #L53 was not covered by tests
There was a problem hiding this comment.
create a new Github issue for this suggestion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Baalmart, the GitHub issue has been successfully created: Issue #3536.
🔗 Analysis chain
@Baalmart, I've created a GitHub issue for this suggestion.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Create a new GitHub issue for the suggestion
gh issue create \
--title "Simplify unit test by removing unnecessary 'done' callback in 'ut_server.js'" \
--body "As discussed in [PR #3532](https://github.com/airqo-platform/AirQo-api/pull/3532) and [this comment](https://github.com/airqo-platform/AirQo-api/pull/3532#discussion_r1779453501), it is suggested to simplify the unit test by removing the unnecessary \`done\` callback in \`ut_server.js\`.
Requester: @Baalmart" \
--assignee Baalmart
Length of output: 508
Description
introduce the network status alert system
Changes Made
Testing
Affected Services
API Documentation Updated?
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores