Add tests for increased coverage.

[Lussebullen]

- What I did

Increased test coverage of cli/compose/convert/volume.go to 100%.

Fixed typo in cli/compose/template/template_test.go to reach the intended branch test in extractVariables func
It checks for Strings.Contains func checks for :? and not ?:

Added tests of Descope and Name methods for Namespace in cli/compose/convert/compose_test.go.

Added test of convertEnvironment in case of nil value in cli/compose/convert/service_test.go.

Added tests for capitalizeFirst func in cli/command/utils_test.go.

Added tests of String and Type methods for NetworkOpt in opts/network_test.go.

Added test for GetAllOrEmpty method and for ParseCPUs in opts/opts_test.go.

- How I did it

We started by checking the Code coverage to see where testing was lacking and added test as we saw fit in order to increase the test coverage.

- How to verify it

Check difference as reported by codecov bot when triggered.

Verify it by running first running make dev and make test to check that all test passes and afterwards running the following commands to check that the test coverage has increaed:

$ go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...
$ go tool cover -html=coverage.out -o coverage.html

or

make test-coverage

- Description for the changelog

Add various test cases for increased test coverage.

- A picture of a cute animal (not mandatory but encouraged)

[Lussebullen]

The failed tests here do not appear when running make test-coverage locally, so I cannot reproduce it at this time.

 55.07 === Failed
55.07 === FAIL: cli-plugins/socket TestConnectAndWait/connect_goroutine_exits_after_EOF (0.00s)
55.07     socket_test.go:111: assertion failed: 9 (int) != 10 (numGoroutines + 1 int)
55.07 
55.07 === FAIL: cli-plugins/socket TestConnectAndWait (0.00s)
55.07 
55.07 DONE 1719 tests, 1 skipped, 2 failures in 54.735s
------
Dockerfile:77
--------------------
  76 |     ENV GO111MODULE=auto
  77 | >>> RUN --mount=type=bind,target=.,rw \
  78 | >>>     --mount=type=cache,target=/root/.cache \
  79 | >>>     --mount=type=cache,target=/go/pkg/mod \
  80 | >>>     gotestsum -- -coverprofile=/tmp/coverage.txt $(go list ./... | grep -vE '/vendor/|/e2e/')
  81 |     
--------------------
ERROR: failed to solve: process "/bin/sh -c gotestsum -- -coverprofile=/tmp/coverage.txt $(go list ./... | grep -vE '/vendor/|/e2e/')" did not complete successfully: exit code: 1
Error: buildx bake failed with: ERROR: failed to solve: process "/bin/sh -c gotestsum -- -coverprofile=/tmp/coverage.txt $(go list ./... | grep -vE '/vendor/|/e2e/')" did not complete successfully: exit code: 1

I'm not entirely sure what to make of the error, but I see that it happens occasionally, e.g. here as well:
#4759. @thaJeztah do you know what to make of this?

[Benehiko]

The failed tests here do not appear when running make test-coverage locally, so I cannot reproduce it at this time.

 55.07 === Failed
55.07 === FAIL: cli-plugins/socket TestConnectAndWait/connect_goroutine_exits_after_EOF (0.00s)
55.07     socket_test.go:111: assertion failed: 9 (int) != 10 (numGoroutines + 1 int)
55.07 
55.07 === FAIL: cli-plugins/socket TestConnectAndWait (0.00s)
55.07 
55.07 DONE 1719 tests, 1 skipped, 2 failures in 54.735s
------
Dockerfile:77
--------------------
  76 |     ENV GO111MODULE=auto
  77 | >>> RUN --mount=type=bind,target=.,rw \
  78 | >>>     --mount=type=cache,target=/root/.cache \
  79 | >>>     --mount=type=cache,target=/go/pkg/mod \
  80 | >>>     gotestsum -- -coverprofile=/tmp/coverage.txt $(go list ./... | grep -vE '/vendor/|/e2e/')
  81 |     
--------------------
ERROR: failed to solve: process "/bin/sh -c gotestsum -- -coverprofile=/tmp/coverage.txt $(go list ./... | grep -vE '/vendor/|/e2e/')" did not complete successfully: exit code: 1
Error: buildx bake failed with: ERROR: failed to solve: process "/bin/sh -c gotestsum -- -coverprofile=/tmp/coverage.txt $(go list ./... | grep -vE '/vendor/|/e2e/')" did not complete successfully: exit code: 1

I'm not entirely sure what to make of the error, but I see that it happens occasionally, e.g. here as well: #4759. @thaJeztah do you know what to make of this?

@Lussebullen This is a flaky test unrelated to your changes and can be safely ignored :)

[Benehiko]

Could you resolve the conflicts and the review suggestions? Other than that it looks good! :)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #4891 (ccfd0b2) into master (ea3201c) will increase coverage by 0.26%.
Report is 12 commits behind head on master.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4891      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   61.44%   61.70%   +0.26%     
==========================================
  Files         289      289              
  Lines       20241    20241              
==========================================
+ Hits        12437    12490      +53     
+ Misses       6903     6864      -39     
+ Partials      901      887      -14     

[Lussebullen]

I force pushed an amend with my signature to fix the DCO issue, but I'm not sure I can trigger the tests to run again.
I fixed the table test as requested and made a comment on the ?: vs :? section :)

[Benehiko]

Thank you @Lussebullen, there is still a merge conflict with cli/command/utils_test.go. Would you be able to update your branch and fix the merge conflicts?

[Lussebullen]

@Benehiko reverted the ?: / :? part as you requested, I also updated the branch, but in doing so it seems the test capitalizeFirst utility no longer builds, for some reason it no longer exports despite doing so before. So I removed it entirely.

[Benehiko]

Thanks @Lussebullen, LGTM :)

[Lussebullen]

My pleasure 🫡
Have a good one ✌️

[vvoland]

LGTM; most of these could be refactored into a table-based tests (thinking of the convertVolumeToMount tests).

But this is still an improvement and could be a follow up 😄

Thanks!

[Benehiko]

Hey @Lussebullen sorry to ask more of you 🙈, but could you squash the commits you have on this branch into a single commit so we can merge this?

[Lussebullen]

@Benehiko I squashed them now, I just added my co-authors in the commit message, not sure how it works with the ctn, but its important to me that they get the credit they are due :)