feat(test): Increase test coverage to meet CI requirements #37
Conversation
Adds extensive unit tests for `bootstrap.js`, `preferences.js`, and `zoterocitationcounts.js`. - Creates new test file `test/unit/bootstrap.test.js` to test the plugin lifecycle functions. - Creates new test file `test/unit/preferences.test.js` to test the preferences pane UI logic. - Adds a new UI Logic test suite to `test/unit/zoterocitationcounts.test.js`. - Adds many new tests for edge cases to improve branch coverage. This brings line, function, and statement coverage to over 80%.
|
Claude finished @flychen50's task —— View job PR Review: Test Coverage ImprovementsI've completed my review of this PR which adds extensive unit tests for the Zotero Citation Counts plugin. Review Tasks:
Overall AssessmentThis is a well-structured PR that significantly improves test coverage by adding comprehensive unit tests for the core components. The tests are well-written and follow good testing practices. StrengthsExcellent Test Architecture
Thorough Edge Case Testing
Good Testing Practices
Areas for ImprovementCode Quality Issues
Test Structure Concerns
Security & Best Practices
Specific Technical IssuesURL Construction CoverageThe URL builder tests for different APIs are comprehensive, but some edge cases around encoding could be better covered: // Consider adding tests for special characters in titles/authors
const metadata = { title: 'Test & Title "with quotes"', author: 'O\'Reilly' };Async Test HandlingSome async tests could benefit from more explicit timeout handling: it('should handle network timeout gracefully', async function() {
this.timeout(5000); // Explicit timeout
// test implementation
});Performance Considerations
Coverage AnalysisBased on the test structure, this PR appears to achieve the stated goal of >80% coverage by:
RecommendationsHigh Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
Security Assessment✅ No security concerns identified. The tests properly mock external APIs and don't expose sensitive data. ConclusionThis is a high-quality PR that significantly improves the project's test coverage. The testing approach is sophisticated and the coverage appears comprehensive. The identified issues are mostly about code organization and completeness rather than fundamental problems. Recommendation: Approve with suggested improvements The PR achieves its primary goal of meeting CI coverage requirements while maintaining good test quality. The suggested improvements can be addressed in follow-up PRs if needed. |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary of Changes
Hello @flychen50, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request significantly enhances the test coverage of the Zotero Citation Counts plugin by introducing new unit tests and expanding existing ones. The primary goal is to meet continuous integration requirements by bringing line, function, and statement coverage to over 80%.
Highlights
- New Test Suites: Introduces dedicated unit test files for
bootstrap.js(plugin lifecycle) andpreferences.js(UI logic for preferences). - Expanded zoterocitationcounts.js Tests: Adds a new UI Logic test suite and extends existing tests for core functionalities like
getCitationCount,_setCitationCount,_getItemMetadataForAdsQuery, and URL generation methods (_semanticScholarUrl,_nasaadsUrl). - Improved Edge Case Coverage: Includes numerous new tests to cover various edge cases and branch conditions, ensuring robustness of the codebase.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request significantly increases the test coverage for the project by adding extensive unit tests for bootstrap.js, preferences.js, and zoterocitationcounts.js. The new tests are well-structured and cover many important code paths and edge cases, which is a great improvement for the project's stability.
I've found a couple of minor maintainability issues in the new tests for zoterocitationcounts.js where some test cases have duplicated descriptions. Making these descriptions unique would improve clarity when debugging. Please see the detailed comments.
| it('should construct URL for author and year only to cover branch', function() { | ||
| const metadata = { author: 'Smith', year: '2024' }; | ||
| const result = global.ZoteroCitationCounts._semanticScholarUrl(metadata, 'title_author_year'); | ||
| expect(result).to.not.include('title'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('author%3ASmith'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('%2Byear%3A2024'); // Check for the '+' separator | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should construct URL for title and year only to cover branch', function() { | ||
| const metadata = { title: 'Test Paper', year: '2024' }; | ||
| const result = global.ZoteroCitationCounts._semanticScholarUrl(metadata, 'title_author_year'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('title%3ATest%2520Paper'); | ||
| expect(result).to.not.include('author'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('%2Byear%3A2024'); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should construct URL for author only to cover branch', function() { | ||
| const metadata = { author: 'Smith' }; | ||
| const result = global.ZoteroCitationCounts._semanticScholarUrl(metadata, 'title_author_year'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('author%3ASmith'); | ||
| expect(result).to.not.include('title'); | ||
| expect(result).to.not.include('year'); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should construct URL for author and year only to cover branch', function() { | ||
| const metadata = { title: null, author: 'Smith', year: '2024' }; | ||
| const result = global.ZoteroCitationCounts._semanticScholarUrl(metadata, 'title_author_year'); | ||
| expect(result).to.not.include('title'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('author%3ASmith'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('%2Byear%3A2024'); // Check for '+' | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should construct URL for title and year only to cover branch', function() { | ||
| const metadata = { title: 'Test Paper', author: null, year: '2024' }; | ||
| const result = global.ZoteroCitationCounts._semanticScholarUrl(metadata, 'title_author_year'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('title%3ATest%2520Paper'); | ||
| expect(result).to.not.include('author'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('%2Byear%3A2024'); // Check for '+' | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should construct URL for author only to cover branch', function() { | ||
| const metadata = { title: null, author: 'Smith', year: null }; | ||
| const result = global.ZoteroCitationCounts._semanticScholarUrl(metadata, 'title_author_year'); | ||
| expect(result).to.not.include('title'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('author%3ASmith'); | ||
| expect(result).to.not.include('year'); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are multiple tests with identical descriptions (e.g., 'should construct URL for author and year only to cover branch'). While the test cases themselves are valid and cover different scenarios (e.g., missing property vs. null property), using the same description makes it difficult to identify which specific case has failed.
To improve test clarity and maintainability, please provide unique and descriptive names for each test case. For example:
'should construct URL for author and year when title is missing''should construct URL for title and year when author is null''should construct URL for author only when title and year are missing'
This should be applied to all duplicated test descriptions in this block.
| it('should construct URL for title only to cover branches', function() { | ||
| const metadata = { title: 'Test Paper' }; | ||
| const result = global.ZoteroCitationCounts._nasaadsUrl(metadata, 'title_author_year'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('title%3A%22Test%2520Paper%22'); | ||
| expect(result).to.not.include('author'); | ||
| expect(result).to.not.include('year'); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should construct URL for author and year only to cover branches', function() { | ||
| const metadata = { author: 'Smith', year: '2024' }; | ||
| const result = global.ZoteroCitationCounts._nasaadsUrl(metadata, 'title_author_year'); | ||
| expect(result).to.not.include('title'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('author%3A%22Smith%22'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('year%3A2024'); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should construct URL for title only to cover branches', function() { | ||
| const metadata = { title: 'Test Paper', author: null, year: null }; | ||
| const result = global.ZoteroCitationCounts._nasaadsUrl(metadata, 'title_author_year'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('title%3A%22Test%2520Paper%22'); | ||
| expect(result).to.not.include('author'); | ||
| expect(result).to.not.include('year'); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should construct URL for author and year only to cover branches', function() { | ||
| const metadata = { title: null, author: 'Smith', year: '2024' }; | ||
| const result = global.ZoteroCitationCounts._nasaadsUrl(metadata, 'title_author_year'); | ||
| expect(result).to.not.include('title'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('author%3A%22Smith%22'); | ||
| expect(result).to.include('year%3A2024'); | ||
| }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Similar to another comment, there are duplicated test descriptions in this suite (e.g., 'should construct URL for title only to cover branches'). This makes it harder to debug failing tests.
Please update the descriptions to be unique and reflect the specific scenario being tested. For example:
'should construct URL for title only when author and year are missing''should construct URL for title only when author and year are null''should construct URL for author and year only when title is missing''should construct URL for author and year only when title is null'
This will make the test suite easier to understand and maintain.
Adds extensive unit tests for
bootstrap.js,preferences.js, andzoterocitationcounts.js.test/unit/bootstrap.test.jsto test the plugin lifecycle functions.test/unit/preferences.test.jsto test the preferences pane UI logic.test/unit/zoterocitationcounts.test.js.This brings line, function, and statement coverage to over 80%.