Update crepr.py #51 #63
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Soham Mhatre <[email protected]>
|
Review changes with SemanticDiff. Analyzed 5 of 5 files. Overall, the semantic diff is 10% smaller than the GitHub diff.
|
Reviewer's Guide by SourceryThis pull request introduces a new command 'report_missing' to the crepr tool. The command identifies and reports classes in specified Python files that lack a custom repr method. This feature aids developers in ensuring their classes follow the best practice of having meaningful string representations for improved readability and debugging. Sequence diagram for the report_missing commandsequenceDiagram
actor User
participant CreprTool as Crepr Tool
participant FileSystem as File System
participant ModuleLoader as Module Loader
participant Reporter as Reporter
User->>CreprTool: Run `crepr report-missing <file>`
CreprTool->>FileSystem: Read file paths
FileSystem-->>CreprTool: File paths
CreprTool->>ModuleLoader: Load module from file
ModuleLoader-->>CreprTool: Module
CreprTool->>Reporter: Check classes for __repr__
Reporter-->>CreprTool: Report missing __repr__
CreprTool->>User: Display report
Class diagram for the updated crepr.pyclassDiagram
class CreprTool {
+report_missing(files: list[pathlib.Path])
}
class ModuleLoader {
+get_module(file_path: pathlib.Path) : ModuleType
}
class Reporter {
+report_missing_classes(module: ModuleType, file_path: pathlib.Path)
}
CreprTool --> ModuleLoader
CreprTool --> Reporter
Reporter --> CreprError
class CreprError {
+message: str
}
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces a new command, Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
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 (
|
![ellipsis-dev[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/64358?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 9bae721 in 9 seconds
More details
- Looked at
37lines of code in1files - Skipped
0files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
1drafted comments based on config settings.
1. crepr/crepr.py:401
- Draft comment:
Theget_all_init_argsfunction filters out classes without__init__methods or with non-keyword arguments. This may causereport_missing_classesto miss classes that should be reported. Consider using a function that iterates over all classes in the module. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Comment was on unchanged code.
Workflow ID: wflow_YLyCDhbfxTF2i2uW
You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.
|
PR-Agent was enabled for this repository. To continue using it, please link your git user with your CodiumAI identity here. PR Reviewer Guide 🔍Here are some key observations to aid the review process:
|
PR Reviewer Guide 🔍Here are some key observations to aid the review process:
|
PR Code Suggestions ✨Explore these optional code suggestions:
|
|
PR-Agent was enabled for this repository. To continue using it, please link your git user with your CodiumAI identity here. PR Code Suggestions ✨Explore these optional code suggestions:
|
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @Sohammhatre10 - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!
Here's what I looked at during the review
- 🟡 General issues: 1 issue found
- 🟢 Security: all looks good
- 🟢 Testing: all looks good
- 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
- 🟢 Documentation: all looks good
Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
![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
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
crepr/crepr.py (2)
380-391: LGTM! Consider enhancing error handling.The
report_missingfunction is well-implemented and aligns with the PR objectives. It correctly uses existing functionality and delegates the reporting to a separate function.Consider adding a try-except block around the
report_missing_classescall to handle any unexpected errors that might occur during the reporting process. This would make the function more robust:try: module = get_module(file_path) report_missing_classes(module, file_path) except CreprError as e: typer.secho(e.message, fg="red", err=True) except Exception as e: typer.secho(f"Unexpected error processing {file_path}: {str(e)}", fg="red", err=True)
393-404: LGTM! Consider enhancing readability.The
report_missing_classesfunction is well-implemented and correctly identifies classes without custom__repr__methods. The output format aligns with the PR objectives.To improve readability, consider extracting the condition for checking if a class is missing a custom
__repr__method into a separate function. This would make the main loop easier to understand at a glance:def is_missing_custom_repr(obj: type) -> bool: repr_method = inspect.getattr_static(obj, "__repr__", None) return repr_method is None or repr_method is object.__repr__ def report_missing_classes(module: ModuleType, file_path: pathlib.Path) -> None: for obj, _, lineno, _ in get_all_init_args(module): if is_missing_custom_repr(obj): typer.echo(f"{file_path}: {lineno}: {obj.__name__}")This change would make the function more modular and easier to test.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #63 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 98.97% 99.37% +0.39%
===========================================
Files 4 4
Lines 294 319 +25
Branches 38 44 +6
===========================================
+ Hits 291 317 +26
+ Misses 3 1 -2
- Partials 0 1 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Hello @cleder, |
|
Run |
Signed-off-by: Soham Mhatre <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Soham Mhatre <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Soham Mhatre <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Soham Mhatre <[email protected]>
|
Signed-off-by: Soham Mhatre <[email protected]>
Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
tests/classes/class_without_repr.py (1)
12-14: LGTM! Well-implemented__init__method with modern type hinting.The
__init__method is correctly implemented:
- Clear method signature with type hints
- Concise docstring
- Proper initialization of instance variable
Minor suggestion: Consider adding a comment or note in the project documentation about the minimum required Python version (3.11+) due to the use of
Selftype hint. This ensures compatibility awareness for users or contributors.tests/classes/class_with_repr_test.py (2)
1-8: LGTM with a minor suggestion.The module docstring clearly describes the purpose of the module, and the import of
Selffromtypingis appropriate for type hinting. However, there's an extra blank line (line 8) that could be removed for better code organization.Consider removing the extra blank line at line 8.
16-22: LGTM with a minor docstring correction.The
__repr__method is well-implemented, providing a clear and informative string representation of the object. The use of type hinting and f-strings is correct, and the formatting follows best practices for__repr__methods.There's a minor typo in the docstring. Please update it as follows:
def __repr__(self: Self) -> str: """Create a string representation for MyClassWithRepr."""tests/run_test.py (3)
291-300: LGTM with a suggestion for improvement.The test correctly verifies the basic functionality of the
report-missingcommand. It checks both the exit code and the presence of expected content in the output.Consider enhancing the test to verify the exact format of the output, including the line number. This would ensure that the command is providing all the required information in the correct format. You could add an assertion like:
assert re.match(r'class_without_repr\.py : \d+ : MyClassWithoutRepr', result.stdout)This would verify that the output matches the expected format:
file-name : line-number : class-name.
311-320: LGTM with a minor correction needed.The test correctly verifies the behavior of the
report-missingcommand when all classes have a__repr__method. It checks for a successful exit code and ensures that there is no output.There's a minor inconsistency in the assertion message. The message suggests expecting 1 line of output, but the assertion checks for 0 lines. Please update the assertion message to reflect the correct expectation:
assert len(lines) == 0, "Expected 0 lines of output, but got more"This will make the test more clear and consistent with its actual expectations.
291-320: Summary of the new test additionsThe new tests for the
report-missingcommand are a valuable addition to the test suite, covering various scenarios including:
- Classes without
__repr__- Files that cause import errors
- Classes with
__repr__While these tests improve coverage, there are opportunities for enhancement:
- In
test_report_missing, consider verifying the exact output format, including line numbers.test_report_missing_errorneeds restructuring to properly assert the expected error behavior.test_report_missing_with_reprhas a minor inconsistency in its assertion message.Addressing these points will result in a more robust and informative test suite for the new functionality.
As you continue to develop and refine these tests, consider the following best practices:
- Use parameterized tests to cover multiple scenarios efficiently.
- Ensure consistent error handling and assertion styles across all tests.
- Mock external dependencies when appropriate to isolate the functionality being tested.
- Maintain clear and accurate documentation within the tests to explain the purpose and expected outcomes.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
- crepr/crepr.py (1 hunks)
- tests/classes/class_with_repr_test.py (1 hunks)
- tests/classes/class_without_repr.py (1 hunks)
- tests/classes/module_error.py (1 hunks)
- tests/run_test.py (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- tests/classes/module_error.py
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- crepr/crepr.py
🔇 Additional comments (5)
tests/classes/class_without_repr.py (3)
1-8: LGTM! Well-structured file with clear documentation.The file structure follows best practices:
- Informative module-level docstring
- Correct import placement
- Proper use of whitespace
9-11: LGTM! Class definition aligns with its intended purpose.The
MyClassWithoutReprclass is well-defined:
- Clear and descriptive class name
- Concise class-level docstring
- Intentional absence of
__repr__method for testing purposes
1-14: Summary: Excellent implementation of test class forreport_missingcommand.This new test file aligns perfectly with the PR objectives:
- It provides a class without a custom
__repr__method, which is ideal for testing thereport_missingcommand.- The clear structure and documentation contribute to the overall quality of the test suite.
- This addition will help ensure the reliability of the new
report_missingfunctionality.Great job on implementing this test class! It will be valuable for verifying the behavior of the new command.
tests/classes/class_with_repr_test.py (2)
12-14: LGTM! Well-implemented__init__method.The
__init__method is correctly implemented with proper type hinting, including the use ofSelf. The docstring accurately describes the method's purpose, and the initialization of thevalueattribute is straightforward and correct.
1-22: Summary: Well-implemented test class with minor docstring improvements needed.This new file successfully implements a test class
MyClassWithReprwith a custom__repr__method, which aligns with the PR objectives. The implementation is generally good, with proper use of type hinting and following Python best practices.A few minor improvements are suggested:
- Remove the extra blank line (line 8).
- Correct the class docstring to accurately describe the class.
- Fix the typo in the
__repr__method docstring.These changes will enhance the clarity and accuracy of the code documentation.
|
@cleder Apologies for the oversight here had mixed up the |
Signed-off-by: Soham Mhatre <[email protected]>
|
@cleder Will you please add the hacktoberfest-accepted tag on this. |
User description
Summary
This pull request introduces a new command report_missing t which reports classes in specified Python files that do not have a custom repr method defined mentioned in #51
Changes Made
Command Definition: A new command report_missing has been added, which takes a list of file paths as input.
Module Inspection: The command iterates through the provided files, attempts to load each module, and checks for classes that either lack a repr method or use the default implementation from the object class.
Error handling using CreprError.
Output: Classes missing a custom repr method are reported with their file paths and line numbers for easy identification.
Motivation
Having a custom repr method improves the readability and debugging of classes by providing meaningful string representations. This command helps developers ensure that their classes follow this best practice.
How to Test
Run the command in the terminal with a specified Python file as follows:
Expected output is of the form
PR Type
enhancement, error handling
Description
report_missingto identify classes in specified Python files that do not have a custom__repr__method.CreprErrorto manage exceptions during module inspection.report_missing_classesfunction to iterate through modules and report classes missing a__repr__method with their file paths and line numbers.Changes walkthrough 📝
crepr.py
Add command to report missing __repr__ methods in classescrepr/crepr.py
report_missingto identify classes without acustom
__repr__method.CreprErrorfor the new command.report_missing_classesfunction to inspect modules andreport missing
__repr__methods.Summary by Sourcery
Add a new command 'report_missing' to the crepr tool, which reports classes without a custom repr method in specified Python files, enhancing code readability and debugging.
New Features:
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
report_missingcommand to identify classes lacking a__repr__method.__repr__.Bug Fixes
report_missingcommand with new test cases for various scenarios.Documentation