Graph tests set2 #166
Graph tests set2 #166
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes introduce a Jest configuration for testing a TypeScript application, along with the addition of test files to validate the functionality of the FalkorDB client and its graph database features. A reusable client connection function is created to facilitate database connections during tests. The Changes
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Poem
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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 7
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
tests/createClient.spec.ts (1)
1-10: Consider adding more comprehensive test cases.While this test case is a good start for ensuring basic client creation, consider expanding the test suite to cover more scenarios:
- Test error cases (e.g., invalid connection parameters).
- Test specific client functionalities or methods.
- Add performance tests if relevant.
Here's an example of an additional test case you might consider:
it('should throw an error with invalid connection parameters', async () => { await expect(client({ /* invalid params */ })).rejects.toThrow(); });Remember to mock external dependencies appropriately when adding these tests.
tests/dbConnection.ts (1)
3-15: Overall implementation looks good, with some suggestions for improvement.The
clientfunction is well-structured as an asynchronous function with error handling. Here are some suggestions to enhance it further:
Consider using environment variables for connection parameters instead of hardcoding them. This would make the code more flexible across different environments.
The error logging could be more informative. Consider including more details about the error.
It's important to handle connection closure. Consider implementing a separate function to close the connection when it's no longer needed.
Here's a suggested refactoring that addresses these points:
import { FalkorDB } from 'falkordb'; export const client = async () => { try { return await FalkorDB.connect({ socket: { host: process.env.FALKORDB_HOST || 'localhost', port: parseInt(process.env.FALKORDB_PORT || '6379', 10) } }); } catch (error) { console.error('Failed to connect to FalkorDB:', error); throw error; } }; export const closeConnection = async (connection: FalkorDB) => { try { await connection.quit(); console.log('FalkorDB connection closed successfully'); } catch (error) { console.error('Error closing FalkorDB connection:', error); throw error; } };This refactoring:
- Uses environment variables with fallback values for connection parameters.
- Improves error logging by using
console.error.- Adds a
closeConnectionfunction to handle connection closure.Remember to set the appropriate environment variables (FALKORDB_HOST and FALKORDB_PORT) in your test environment.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
- jest.config.js (1 hunks)
- package.json (2 hunks)
- tests/createClient.spec.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/dbConnection.ts (1 hunks)
- tests/graphAndQuery.spec.ts (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (16)
tests/createClient.spec.ts (2)
1-2: LGTM: Imports are correct and follow best practices.The import statements are appropriate for the test file. Importing
clientfrom a local module andexpectfrom '@jest/globals' follows Jest testing best practices.
4-4: LGTM: Test suite description is clear and accurate.The test suite description "FalkorDB Client" accurately represents the purpose of the tests in this file.
jest.config.js (8)
2-2: LGTM: Correct preset for TypeScriptThe
presetis correctly set to "ts-jest", which is appropriate for running Jest with TypeScript files.
3-3: LGTM: Appropriate test environmentThe
testEnvironmentis set to "node", which is suitable for server-side TypeScript applications.
4-4: LGTM: Test directory correctly specifiedThe
rootsproperty correctly specifies the "tests" directory as the location for test files.
5-5: LGTM: Correct transformation for TypeScript filesThe
transformproperty is correctly configured to use ts-jest for all TypeScript files.
6-6: LGTM: Appropriate test file naming conventionThe
testRegexproperty correctly identifies test files ending with .test.ts or .spec.ts, which is a common naming convention.
7-7: LGTM: Comprehensive module file extensionsThe
moduleFileExtensionsproperty includes all relevant file types (TypeScript, JavaScript, JSON, and Node), ensuring proper module resolution.
1-9: Excellent Jest configuration for TypeScript testingThe
jest.config.jsfile is well-structured and provides a comprehensive configuration for running TypeScript tests with Jest. It includes all necessary settings such as the correct preset, test environment, file extensions, and test file naming conventions. The inclusion of a database connection setup file is a good practice for preparing the test environment.This configuration follows best practices for TypeScript testing and should provide a solid foundation for your test suite.
8-8: LGTM: Database connection setup includedThe
setupFilesAfterEnvproperty correctly includes a setup file for database connection, which is a good practice for test environment preparation.To ensure the database connection setup is correctly implemented, please review the contents of the
dbConnection.tsfile:✅ Verification successful
LGTM: Database connection setup verified
The
dbConnection.tsfile correctly establishes a connection to FalkorDB, ensuring a reliable test environment.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the contents of the dbConnection.ts file # Test: Display the contents of the dbConnection.ts file cat tests/dbConnection.tsLength of output: 373
tests/dbConnection.ts (1)
1-1: LGTM: Import statement is correct.The import of
FalkorDBfrom the 'falkordb' package is appropriate for the function implementation.package.json (3)
16-16: LGTM: Jest script addedThe addition of the Jest script is appropriate and aligns with the PR objective of adding graph tests. This will make it easier to run Jest tests in the project.
Line range hint
37-37: LGTM: @types/jest updatedUpdating the "@types/jest" to version "^29.5.12" is a good practice. It ensures that the type definitions are compatible with the latest version of Jest, which is beneficial for the new graph tests being added.
Line range hint
1-55: Summary of changes and request for more informationThe changes to
package.jsonare focused on supporting Jest testing, which aligns with the PR objective of adding graph tests. However, there are no explicit graph-related changes in this file.Could you provide more information about where the actual graph tests are implemented? Are there other files in this PR that contain the graph test implementations?
To check for new test files related to graphs, you can run:
#!/bin/bash # Search for new test files that might contain graph tests git diff --name-only | grep -E 'test.*graph.*\.(ts|js)$' || echo "No new graph test files found"tests/graphAndQuery.spec.ts (2)
154-156: Potential risk of injection when constructing queries directly from parametersDirectly embedding parameters into queries using string interpolation may expose the code to injection attacks or syntax errors, especially with complex or malicious inputs.
[security]
Consider using parameterized queries to safely include parameters. Adjust the code as follows:
- const query = `RETURN ${JSON.stringify(param)} AS param`; - const result = await graph.query(query); + const query = `RETURN $param AS param`; + const result = await graph.query(query, { param });This change ensures parameters are correctly escaped and passed securely to the query.
163-164: Verify correct syntax for boolean and null values in the queryIn the query, boolean and null values should match the syntax expected by the database. Ensure that
'True'and'NULL'are correctly recognized.Apply this diff if the database expects lowercase values:
- const query = `RETURN {name: 'John', age: 29, isEmployed: True, skills: ['Python', 'JavaScript'], salary: NULL, address: {city: 'New York', zip: 10001}}`; + const query = `RETURN {name: 'John', age: 29, isEmployed: true, skills: ['Python', 'JavaScript'], salary: null, address: {city: 'New York', zip: 10001}}`;Please confirm whether the database query language requires lowercase for boolean and null literals.
| it('create a FalkorDB client instance validated existing', async () => { | ||
| const db = await client(); | ||
| expect(db).not.toBeNull(); | ||
| await db.close(); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Improve test case robustness and description.
The test case structure is good, but consider the following improvements:
-
Make the test description more specific. Instead of "create a FalkorDB client instance validated existing", consider "should create a valid FalkorDB client instance".
-
Add error handling for the asynchronous operations.
-
Consider adding more specific assertions about the client instance.
Here's a suggested refactor:
it('should create a valid FalkorDB client instance', async () => {
let db;
try {
db = await client();
expect(db).not.toBeNull();
expect(db).toHaveProperty('close');
// Add more specific assertions if possible
} catch (error) {
fail(`Failed to create client: ${error.message}`);
} finally {
if (db) {
await db.close();
}
}
});This refactor improves error handling, adds more specific assertions, and ensures the database connection is closed even if an error occurs.
| @@ -47,6 +48,7 @@ | |||
| "dependencies": { | |||
| "@redis/client": "^1.6.0", | |||
| "cluster-key-slot": "1.1.2", | |||
| "falkordb": "^6.2.2", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Remove Unnecessary "falkordb" Dependency
No imports of "falkordb" were found in the codebase. Consider removing this dependency from package.json to avoid potential issues with circular dependencies and to keep the project dependencies clean.
🔗 Analysis chain
Verify the necessity of the "falkordb" dependency
The addition of the "falkordb" dependency seems unusual, as it appears that the package is depending on itself. This could lead to circular dependencies or other issues.
Could you please verify if this dependency is necessary? If it's intended to be a peer dependency or an optional dependency, it might be better to move it to the appropriate section of the package.json file.
To check for any existing usage of this dependency, you can run:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for imports of 'falkordb' in the project
rg --type typescript --type javascript 'from [\'"]falkordb[\'"]' || echo "No imports found"
Length of output: 127
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('Create a graph and check for its existence', async () => { | ||
| const graph = clientInstance.selectGraph('testGraph'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Risk of test conflicts due to shared 'testGraph' name
Using the same graph name 'testGraph' across multiple tests can cause conflicts if tests are executed concurrently. This may lead to flaky tests or unexpected behaviors.
To prevent interference, consider using unique graph names for each test. For example, include a unique identifier like the test name or use a random string:
- const graph = clientInstance.selectGraph('testGraph');
+ const graph = clientInstance.selectGraph(`testGraph_${expect.getState().currentTestName}`);This ensures each test operates on its own graph instance.
Also applies to: 25-25, 33-33, 45-45, 53-53, 64-64, 73-73, 103-103, 123-123, 150-150, 162-162, 182-182
| const currCount = await clientInstance.list() | ||
| const exists = currCount.includes("testGraph"); | ||
| await graph.delete() | ||
| expect(exists).toBe(true) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Use 'afterEach' hook for cleanup to avoid code duplication
Repeating await graph.delete() at the end of each test can be simplified. Utilizing Jest's afterEach hook ensures that cleanup occurs after every test, even if a test fails, reducing code duplication and improving maintainability.
Add the following afterEach hook:
+ afterEach(async () => {
+ const graph = clientInstance.selectGraph('testGraph');
+ await graph.delete();
+ });Then, remove await graph.delete(); from the end of each test:
- await graph.delete();Also applies to: 28-28, 36-36, 48-48, 60-60, 70-70, 99-99, 119-119, 146-146, 158-158, 178-178, 190-190
| @@ -0,0 +1,193 @@ | |||
| import { client } from './dbConnection'; | |||
| import { expect } from '@jest/globals'; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Remove unnecessary import of 'expect'
In Jest test files, expect is globally available, so importing it explicitly is redundant and can be safely removed to clean up the code.
Apply this diff to remove the unnecessary import:
-import { expect } from '@jest/globals';📝 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.
| import { expect } from '@jest/globals'; |
| import { expect } from '@jest/globals'; | ||
|
|
||
| describe('FalkorDB Execute Query', () => { | ||
| let clientInstance: any; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Avoid using the 'any' type for 'clientInstance'
Using the any type undermines TypeScript's type safety. Specify the appropriate type for clientInstance to enhance code reliability and maintainability.
Apply this change by replacing any with the correct type returned by client():
- let clientInstance: any;
+ let clientInstance: ClientType; // Replace 'ClientType' with the actual type returned by 'client()'Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| it('Execute a roQuery and return the correct results', async () => { | ||
| const graph = clientInstance.selectGraph('testGraph'); | ||
| await graph.query("CREATE (:Person {name:'Alice'})"); | ||
| const result = await graph.query("MATCH (n:Person) RETURN n.name"); | ||
| await graph.delete() | ||
| expect(result?.data[0]['n.name']).toBe('Alice'); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mismatch between test name and implementation
The test name suggests that roQuery is being used, but the implementation uses graph.query. To ensure the test accurately reflects its purpose, update the method to graph.roQuery.
Apply this diff to correct the method used:
- const result = await graph.query("MATCH (n:Person) RETURN n.name");
+ const result = await graph.roQuery("MATCH (n:Person) RETURN n.name");📝 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('Execute a roQuery and return the correct results', async () => { | |
| const graph = clientInstance.selectGraph('testGraph'); | |
| await graph.query("CREATE (:Person {name:'Alice'})"); | |
| const result = await graph.query("MATCH (n:Person) RETURN n.name"); | |
| await graph.delete() | |
| expect(result?.data[0]['n.name']).toBe('Alice'); | |
| }); | |
| it('Execute a roQuery and return the correct results', async () => { | |
| const graph = clientInstance.selectGraph('testGraph'); | |
| await graph.query("CREATE (:Person {name:'Alice'})"); | |
| const result = await graph.roQuery("MATCH (n:Person) RETURN n.name"); | |
| await graph.delete() | |
| expect(result?.data[0]['n.name']).toBe('Alice'); | |
| }); |
Summary by CodeRabbit
package.jsonfor better compatibility and performance.