Removing bad reference to self.last_coverage_percentages

[kelper-hub]

User description

This is causing logs that look like that are causing errors when there really aren't any errors. self.last_coverage_percentages is never updated, so there is no key to be referenced.

Before:

2025-01-07 22:14:08,946 - cover_agent.UnitTestValidator - INFO - Running test with the following command: "pytest --cov=. --cov-report=xml --cov-report=term"
2025-01-07 22:14:10,013 - cover_agent.UnitTestValidator - INFO - coverage: Percentage 71.93%
2025-01-07 22:14:10,013 - cover_agent.UnitTestValidator - ERROR - Error validating test: 'app.py'

After:

2025-01-07 22:14:55,079 - cover_agent.UnitTestValidator - INFO - Running test with the following command: "pytest --cov=. --cov-report=xml --cov-report=term"
2025-01-07 22:14:56,156 - cover_agent.UnitTestValidator - INFO - coverage: Percentage 82.61%
2025-01-07 22:14:56,156 - cover_agent.UnitTestValidator - INFO - Coverage for provided source file: app.py increased to 72.73
2025-01-07 22:14:56,156 - cover_agent.UnitTestValidator - INFO - Test passed and coverage increased. Current coverage: 82.61%

---

PR Type

Bug fix

---

Description

• Removed invalid reference to self.last_coverage_percentages.

• Fixed misleading error logs during test validation.

• Improved logging for coverage changes in source and non-source files.

• Ensured accurate reporting of test coverage increases.

---

Changes walkthrough 📝

	Relevant files
Bug fix	UnitTestValidator.py Fix invalid reference and improve coverage logging              cover_agent/UnitTestValidator.py Removed references to self.last_coverage_percentages to fix errors. Updated logging messages for coverage increases. Improved clarity and accuracy of coverage-related logs. +3/-4

---

💡 PR-Agent usage: Comment /help "your question" on any pull request to receive relevant information

[qodo-merge-pro]

Qodo Merge was enabled for this repository. To continue using it, please link your Git account with your Qodo account here.

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 1 🔵⚪⚪⚪⚪

🧪 No relevant tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Log Format Consider adding a consistent format for coverage percentage logging - some messages use % symbol while others don't. This could lead to confusion when parsing logs. f"Coverage for provided source file: {key} increased to {round(new_v.coverage * 100, 2)}" ) elif new_v.coverage > old_v.coverage: self.logger.info( f"Coverage for non-source file: {key} increased to {round(new_v.coverage * 100, 2)}"

[qodo-merge-pro]

Qodo Merge was enabled for this repository. To continue using it, please link your Git account with your Qodo account here.

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Score
General	Include both old and new values when logging metric changes to improve tracking and debugging capabilities Include the previous coverage value in the log message to better track coverage changes. Use old_v.coverage which is already available. cover_agent/UnitTestValidator.py [572-574] self.logger.info( - f"Coverage for provided source file: {key} increased to {round(new_v.coverage * 100, 2)}" + f"Coverage for provided source file: {key} increased from {round(old_v.coverage * 100, 2)} to {round(new_v.coverage * 100, 2)}" ) Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 Why: The suggestion improves observability by showing the coverage change delta, using the already available old_v.coverage value. This makes it easier to track and analyze coverage improvements.	7
	Maintain consistent logging format across similar operations for better readability and analysis Apply the same improvement to the non-source file coverage logging for consistency in reporting. cover_agent/UnitTestValidator.py [576-578] self.logger.info( - f"Coverage for non-source file: {key} increased to {round(new_v.coverage * 100, 2)}" + f"Coverage for non-source file: {key} increased from {round(old_v.coverage * 100, 2)} to {round(new_v.coverage * 100, 2)}" ) Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 Why: The suggestion maintains consistency in logging format with the previous suggestion, making the logs more uniform and easier to analyze. It uses the same pattern of showing coverage changes from old to new values.	7