Summary by CodeRabbit

New Features
- Enhanced network configurations and naming for Docker services.
- Introduced graceful shutdown capabilities for better resource management.
- Implemented new HTTP request configurations for improved testing.
Bug Fixes
- Resolved issues with test environment setup by ensuring clean port availability before tests.
Tests
- Added detailed test reports for better visibility into test outcomes.
- Expanded test configurations to cover more scenarios and endpoints.
Chores
- Updated build process to include coverage analysis.

Apr 10 '24 18:04 himanshu-wedensday

Walkthrough

The recent updates enhance the project by integrating the Keploy SDK for better testing and network management. Changes include the addition of network configurations in docker-compose.yml, initialization of Keploy in the server's main test file, and updates to the Dockerfile to include coverage during builds. Additionally, new test configurations for HTTP requests have been defined in the Keploy directory.

Changes

Files	Change Summary
`Dockerfile`	Added `-cover` flag to `go build` command.
`cmd/server/main_test.go`	Added imports and initialized Keploy. Added `KillProcessOnPort()` before tests.
`docker-compose.yml`	Added `networks` and `container_name` configurations. Defined `go-template-networks`.
`keploy/reports/.../test-set-0-report.yaml`	Detailed test results for test set 0.
`keploy/test-set-0/tests/...`	Added HTTP request configurations for multiple tests to various endpoints.
`pkg/api/api.go`	Added Keploy import and invoked `GracefulShutdown()` function.

🐰✨ In the land of code and docker files, A rabbit hopped through digital miles. With a tweak and a test, new features align, Under the moonlit branches of the dev pipeline. Celebrate the code, oh so divine! 🌟 🐰💻

Recent Review Details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9e3bdf7cfbc0e0b402abb4472a69b47394fc080b and 052ea598245460758c9df0fff99ff6ba398b849a.

Files ignored due to path filters (2)

go.mod is excluded by !**/*.mod
go.sum is excluded by !**/*.sum

Files selected for processing (16)

Dockerfile (1 hunks)
cmd/server/main_test.go (4 hunks)
docker-compose.yml (2 hunks)
keploy/reports/test-run-0/test-set-0-report.yaml (1 hunks)
keploy/reports/test-run-1/test-set-0-report.yaml (1 hunks)
keploy/reports/test-run-2/test-set-0-report.yaml (1 hunks)
keploy/reports/test-run-3/test-set-0-report.yaml (1 hunks)
keploy/reports/test-run-4/test-set-0-report.yaml (1 hunks)
keploy/reports/test-run-5/test-set-0-report.yaml (1 hunks)
keploy/reports/test-run-6/test-set-0-report.yaml (1 hunks)
keploy/test-set-0/mocks.yaml (1 hunks)
keploy/test-set-0/tests/test-1.yaml (1 hunks)
keploy/test-set-0/tests/test-2.yaml (1 hunks)
keploy/test-set-0/tests/test-3.yaml (1 hunks)
keploy/test-set-0/tests/test-4.yaml (1 hunks)
pkg/api/api.go (2 hunks)

Files not summarized due to errors (1)

keploy/test-set-0/mocks.yaml: Error: Message exceeds token limit

Additional comments not posted (54)

docker-compose.yml (6)

16-17: Network configuration for the db service looks good.

22-23: Network configuration for the redis service looks good.

30-31: Network configuration for the wait-for-db service looks good.

35-35: Container naming for the app service is appropriate.

46-47: Network configuration for the app service looks good.

49-50: Definition of go-template-networks is clear and correctly configured as internal.

Dockerfile (1)

17-17: Addition of the -cover flag for test coverage analysis is appropriate.

cmd/server/main_test.go (3)

4-4: Addition of necessary imports for Keploy integration and error handling looks good.

Also applies to: 14-14

29-38: Proper initialization and configuration of Keploy in the initEnv function, including error handling, are correctly implemented.

85-85: Addition of keploy.KillProcessOnPort() to ensure no port conflicts during tests is a prudent measure.

pkg/api/api.go (2)

25-25: Addition of the Keploy import for graceful shutdown functionality is appropriate.

86-86: Invocation of keploy.GracefulShutdown() to enhance the shutdown process is correctly placed.

keploy/test-set-0/tests/test-1.yaml (1)

1-78: The configuration for test case test-1 is comprehensive and well-defined, covering various aspects of the HTTP request and response.

keploy/test-set-0/tests/test-2.yaml (1)

1-79: The configuration for test case test-2 is comprehensive and well-defined, covering various aspects of the HTTP request and response.

keploy/test-set-0/tests/test-3.yaml (1)

1-78: The configuration for test case test-3 is comprehensive and well-defined, covering various aspects of the HTTP request and response.

keploy/test-set-0/tests/test-4.yaml (1)

1-79: The configuration for test case test-4 is comprehensive and well-defined, covering various aspects of the HTTP request and response.
keploy/reports/test-run-0/test-set-0-report.yaml (3)
116-124: The test report indicates a mismatch in the expected and actual X-Request-Id headers. This could point to issues in request tracking or session management that need further investigation.

Verification successful

The provided script output shows multiple instances of the X-Request-Id header across different test runs and reports within the YAML files. Each instance shows a mismatch between the expected and actual values of the X-Request-Id header, which aligns with the initial review comment about potential issues in request tracking or session management.

The mismatches in X-Request-Id values across different test cases suggest that the system might not be consistently handling or generating these IDs as expected. This could indeed point to underlying issues in how request identifiers are managed or generated, which could affect tracking and debugging capabilities across sessions or requests.

Given the evidence from the script outputs, the initial review comment about the need for further investigation into the handling of X-Request-Id headers is substantiated.
Scripts Executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify if the X-Request-Id header is being correctly generated and tracked across requests.
rg --type yaml "X-Request-Id" -C 10
Length of output: 133418
383-391: There is a discrepancy in the X-Request-Id values between expected and actual results, suggesting potential issues in request handling or logging mechanisms.

Verification successful

The provided script output shows multiple instances of discrepancies in the X-Request-Id values across different test runs and sets within the application's YAML configuration files. This indicates that the X-Request-Id is not consistently handled or logged, supporting the initial review comment about potential issues in request handling or logging mechanisms.

Given the evidence from the script output, the review comment is consistent with the findings, suggesting that there might indeed be issues with how X-Request-Id values are managed or recorded in different parts of the application.
Scripts Executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check for consistent handling of X-Request-Id across different parts of the application.
rg --type yaml "X-Request-Id" -C 10
Length of output: 133418
755-763: The mismatch in X-Request-Id values could indicate problems with how requests are identified and traced in the system. Further investigation is recommended.
keploy/reports/test-run-4/test-set-0-report.yaml (2)

205-398: All expected values match the actual values in test case 'test-2'. Good consistency in test results.

597-790: All expected values match the actual values in test case 'test-4'. Good consistency in test results.

keploy/reports/test-run-5/test-set-0-report.yaml (1)

594-594: The test failed due to an error in saving user information. This should be investigated to ensure the backend service handles data correctly.

keploy/reports/test-run-6/test-set-0-report.yaml (4)

75-80: The Content-Length header shows a discrepancy between expected and actual values. Verify if this is an intended part of the test or an error in the test setup.

205-206: This test case is well-documented and passed successfully. Ensure that all test cases maintain this level of detail and accuracy.

594-594: The expected and actual body results differ, indicating a potential issue with the API handling or the test data. Further investigation is recommended.

597-598: This test case is well-documented and passed successfully. Consistency in test setup and results is crucial for reliable testing.

keploy/reports/test-run-3/test-set-0-report.yaml (1)

205-398: This test case is correctly executed and reported. Good job on ensuring all expected results match the actual results.

keploy/test-set-0/mocks.yaml (27)

1-30: The configuration for mock-0 is correctly structured and includes all necessary fields for a Postgres interaction mock.

32-88: The configuration for mock-1 is well-formed and accurately represents the intended Postgres interactions.

90-118: The SQL command and structure in mock-2 are correctly implemented for the intended testing scenario.

120-149: Configuration for mock-3 is correctly set up for the intended Postgres interaction testing.

151-180: The password handling and response setup in mock-4 are correctly implemented for testing Postgres authentication.

182-211: The startup request and parameters in mock-5 are consistent and correctly structured for the intended testing.

213-242: Password authentication and server response in mock-6 are detailed and correctly implemented.

244-273: Startup request and server response in mock-7 are correctly implemented and consistent with the application's testing needs.

275-304: Password handling and server response in mock-8 are secure and comprehensive, meeting the testing requirements.

306-335: Startup request and server response in mock-9 are correctly set and detailed, suitable for the intended testing scenarios.

337-366: Password handling and server response in mock-10 are secure and comprehensive, meeting the testing requirements.

368-397: Startup request and server response in mock-11 are correctly implemented and consistent with the application's testing needs.

399-428: Password handling and server response in mock-12 are secure and comprehensive, meeting the testing requirements.

430-459: Startup request and server response in mock-13 are correctly set and detailed, suitable for the intended testing scenarios.

461-490: Password handling and server response in mock-14 are secure and comprehensive, meeting the testing requirements.

492-521: Startup request and server response in mock-15 are correctly implemented and consistent with the application's testing needs.

523-552: Password authentication and server response in mock-16 are detailed and correctly implemented.

554-583: Startup request and server response in mock-17 are correctly set and detailed, suitable for the intended testing scenarios.

585-614: Password handling and server response in mock-18 are secure and comprehensive, meeting the testing requirements.

616-645: Startup request and server response in mock-19 are correctly implemented and consistent with the application's testing needs.

647-676: Password handling and server response in mock-20 are secure and comprehensive, meeting the testing requirements.

678-707: Startup request and server response in mock-21 are correctly set and detailed, suitable for the intended testing scenarios.

709-738: Password handling and server response in mock-22 are secure and comprehensive, meeting the testing requirements.

740-769: Startup request and server response in mock-23 are correctly implemented and consistent with the application's testing needs.

771-800: Password authentication and server response in mock-24 are detailed and correctly implemented.

802-831: Startup request and server response in mock-25 are correctly set and detailed, suitable for the intended testing scenarios.

833-862: Password handling and server response in mock-26 are secure and comprehensive, meeting the testing requirements.

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?

Share

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
- I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
- Generate unit testing code for this file.
- Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
- @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
- @coderabbitai modularize this function.
PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
- @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
- @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
- @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
- @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

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 as PR comments)

@coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
@coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
@coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
@coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
@coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (`.coderabbit.yaml`)

You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json