V9.0.0/depedency bump #3
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes involve significant updates to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
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: 6
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests.csproj (2)
3-6: LGTM: Appropriate target frameworks and namespace.The project targets both .NET 9.0 and 8.0, which is good for ensuring compatibility. The root namespace is correctly set to match the project structure.
Consider adding a comment about .NET 9.0 being in preview, for clarity:
<PropertyGroup> + <!-- TODO: Update when .NET 9.0 is released --> <TargetFrameworks>net9.0;net8.0</TargetFrameworks> <RootNamespace>Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json</RootNamespace> </PropertyGroup>
1-16: Overall, the project file is well-structured and appropriate for a test project.The file includes all necessary elements for a .NET test project, targeting appropriate frameworks and including the correct references. Minor suggestions have been made for improvement, but there are no major issues.
As the project grows, consider:
- Adding more properties to control test behavior (e.g., parallel execution, test categories).
- Including code coverage tools if not already present in the global configuration.
- Ensuring that the test project mirrors the structure of the main project for easier navigation and maintenance.
test/Codebelt.Extensions.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Codebelt.Extensions.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests.csproj (1)
12-14: Consider planning for stable version upgrades.While the package updates align with the PR objectives and maintain consistency, it's worth noting that all updated packages are still in preview versions. Using preview versions in a project can potentially introduce instability.
Consider creating a plan for upgrading to stable versions of these packages when they become available. This could include:
- Monitoring the release cycles of these packages.
- Setting up automated alerts for new stable releases.
- Scheduling regular reviews of dependency versions.
- Documenting any known issues or limitations with the current preview versions to ease future upgrades.
Directory.Build.targets (1)
Line range hint
1-21: Overall, the changes to Directory.Build.targets look good.The modifications align well with the PR objectives, particularly the switch from BUILD_BUILDNUMBER to GITHUB_RUN_NUMBER. This change reflects the project's move to using GitHub Actions for CI/CD. The new target for preparing package release notes is also a valuable addition.
Consider documenting these changes in your project's README or documentation, especially the new versioning scheme using GITHUB_RUN_NUMBER. This will help maintain consistency across the project and inform other developers about the new build process.
src/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.csproj (1)
Line range hint
1-35: Suggestion: Conduct comprehensive testingThe changes in this file, including the namespace update and package version bumps, appear to be part of a larger rebranding and dependency update effort. To ensure that these changes haven't introduced any unexpected issues:
- Run the full test suite for this project.
- If possible, perform integration tests with any dependent projects.
- Verify that the updated packages (Cuemon.AspNetCore.Mvc and Cuemon.Extensions.IO) are compatible with the rest of your codebase.
Would you like assistance in generating a test plan or additional test cases to cover these changes?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
- Codebelt.Extensions.Newtonsoft.Json.sln (3 hunks)
- Directory.Build.props (2 hunks)
- Directory.Build.targets (1 hunks)
- src/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.csproj (2 hunks)
- src/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.csproj (1 hunks)
- src/Codebelt.Extensions.Newtonsoft.Json/Codebelt.Extensions.Newtonsoft.Json.csproj (1 hunks)
- test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests.csproj (1 hunks)
- test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Formatters/ServiceCollectionExtensionsTest.cs (1 hunks)
- test/Codebelt.Extensions.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Codebelt.Extensions.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests.csproj (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (20)
test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests.csproj (3)
1-1: LGTM: Appropriate SDK used.The project is correctly using the Microsoft.NET.Sdk, which is suitable for a .NET test project.
12-14: LGTM: Correct project reference.The project reference to the main library is correctly included, which is essential for the test project.
To ensure the project path is correct, you can run:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence of the referenced project if [ -f "src/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.csproj" ]; then echo "Project file exists" else echo "Project file not found" fi
8-10: Verify the package version.The package reference to Cuemon.Extensions.AspNetCore.Authentication is included correctly. The preview version aligns with the .NET 9.0 target framework.
Please ensure this is the latest available version of the package. You can verify this by running:
test/Codebelt.Extensions.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Codebelt.Extensions.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests.csproj (3)
12-12: Approve Codebelt.Extensions.Xunit update with verification.The update of Codebelt.Extensions.Xunit from 9.0.0-preview.2 to 9.0.0-preview.8 aligns with the PR objective of bumping dependencies. However, given the significant version jump within preview releases, it's crucial to ensure compatibility.
Please verify that this update doesn't introduce any breaking changes. You may want to review the changelog or release notes for this package to understand the changes between these versions.
13-13: Approve Cuemon.Extensions.Core update.The update of Cuemon.Extensions.Core from 9.0.0-preview.7 to 9.0.0-preview.9 is in line with the PR objective. This is a minor version jump within preview releases.
While the risk of breaking changes is lower, it's still good practice to quickly check for any potential issues introduced by this update.
14-14: Approve Cuemon.Extensions.IO update.The update of Cuemon.Extensions.IO from 9.0.0-preview.7 to 9.0.0-preview.9 is consistent with the update made to Cuemon.Extensions.Core. This alignment is good practice and reduces the risk of version incompatibilities between related packages.
The consistent updating of these related packages is commendable.
src/Codebelt.Extensions.Newtonsoft.Json/Codebelt.Extensions.Newtonsoft.Json.csproj (1)
13-14: LGTM! Consider verifying the update strategy.The package reference updates for Cuemon.Core and Cuemon.IO to version 9.0.0-preview.9 are consistent and align with the PR objectives. Good job on keeping these related packages at the same version.
To ensure consistency across the solution, please run the following script to check for any other occurrences of Cuemon packages and their versions:
This will help verify if all Cuemon packages are updated consistently and identify any other preview packages that might need attention.
Also, since these are preview versions, ensure that the team is aware of potential instability or breaking changes that might come with using preview releases in the project.
✅ Verification successful
Package Updates Verified Successfully
All Cuemon package references across the solution have been consistently updated to version 9.0.0-preview.9. No discrepancies were found in the package versions.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for Cuemon package references across the solution # Search for Cuemon package references echo "Cuemon package references:" rg --type csproj '<PackageReference Include="Cuemon' -A 1 # Search for other preview packages echo "\nOther preview packages:" rg --type csproj '<PackageReference Include="[^"]+" Version="[^"]+-preview' -A 1Length of output: 328
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for Cuemon package references across the solution # Search for Cuemon package references in .csproj files echo "Cuemon package references:" rg '<PackageReference Include="Cuemon' -g '*.csproj' # Search for other preview packages in .csproj files echo "\nOther preview packages:" rg '<PackageReference Include="[^"]+" Version="[^"]+-preview' -g '*.csproj'Length of output: 3497
Directory.Build.targets (2)
Line range hint
6-14: LGTM: Well-structured new target for package release notes.The new "PreparePackageReleaseNotesFromFile" target is well-implemented. It correctly reads the release notes file and sets the PackageReleaseNotes property, ensuring it only runs for non-test projects when the file exists. The use of '%0A' for line breaks is appropriate for NuSpec files.
17-18: LGTM: Versioning update aligned with PR objectives.The changes to use GITHUB_RUN_NUMBER instead of BUILD_BUILDNUMBER are correct and align with the PR objectives. The default value of 0 is a good practice for when the variable is not set.
Please verify that this change in versioning doesn't negatively impact your package versioning strategy or any systems that depend on the current versioning scheme. Run the following script to check for any other references to BUILD_BUILDNUMBER that might need updating:
✅ Verification successful
Action Required: Re-verify References to BUILD_BUILDNUMBER
The previous search for
BUILD_BUILDNUMBERdid not yield results. To ensure no remaining references exist, please run the following script:
The search confirmed that there are no remaining references to
BUILD_BUILDNUMBERin the codebase. The update to useGITHUB_RUN_NUMBERis fully implemented and does not negatively impact the current versioning strategy.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining references to BUILD_BUILDNUMBER # Test: Search for BUILD_BUILDNUMBER in all files rg --type-add 'proj:*.{props,targets,csproj}' --type proj 'BUILD_BUILDNUMBER'Length of output: 77
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Comprehensive check for any remaining references to BUILD_BUILDNUMBER # Corrected search command with expanded file types rg --type-add 'proj:*.{props,targets,csproj}' --type proj 'BUILD_BUILDNUMBER' --ignore-caseLength of output: 91
src/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.csproj (1)
14-14: Approved: Package reference update looks good.The update of Cuemon.Extensions.AspNetCore from version 9.0.0-preview.7 to 9.0.0-preview.9 aligns with the PR objectives for dependency updates. This minor version bump likely includes bug fixes or small improvements.
To ensure compatibility, please verify:
- This update doesn't introduce any breaking changes.
- The new version is compatible with other dependencies in the project.
- Any new features or changes in this version are properly utilized or don't negatively impact the project.
You can use the following script to check for any other occurrences of the Cuemon.Extensions.AspNetCore package in the project:
If other occurrences are found, ensure they are updated consistently across the project.
✅ Verification successful
Verified: All occurrences of Cuemon.Extensions.AspNetCore have been updated consistently.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for other occurrences of Cuemon.Extensions.AspNetCore package reference # Expected result: Only the updated reference should be found rg --type xml 'PackageReference Include="Cuemon.Extensions.AspNetCore"' -g '*.csproj'Length of output: 282
src/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.csproj (2)
27-27: Package version update for Cuemon.Extensions.IO looks good.The update from 9.0.0-preview.7 to 9.0.0-preview.9 for Cuemon.Extensions.IO is consistent with the previous package update and aligns with the PR objectives.
Similar to the previous package, let's check for any significant changes in this package's release notes or changelog:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for changelog or release notes for Cuemon.Extensions.IO # Expect: Information about changes between preview.7 and preview.9 rg --type md -i "changelog|release notes" --glob "*.md"
26-26: Package version update for Cuemon.AspNetCore.Mvc looks good.The update from 9.0.0-preview.7 to 9.0.0-preview.9 for Cuemon.AspNetCore.Mvc is in line with the PR objectives for dependency updates.
To ensure this update doesn't introduce any breaking changes, let's check for any significant changes in the package's release notes or changelog:
Directory.Build.props (4)
74-74: LGTM: xunit.runner.console package update.The update of xunit.runner.console from version 2.9.0 to 2.9.2 is consistent with the xunit package update. This alignment ensures compatibility between xunit and its console runner.
Line range hint
73-84: Summary: Dependency updates align with PR objectives.The changes in this file successfully update the xunit-related packages and the Codebelt.Extensions.Xunit.App package, aligning with the PR's objective of bumping dependencies. These updates are generally beneficial for maintaining current and potentially improved test infrastructure.
Key points:
- xunit and xunit.runner.console updated from 2.9.0 to 2.9.2
- Codebelt.Extensions.Xunit.App updated from 9.0.0-preview.2 to 9.0.0-preview.8
While these updates are approved, please ensure:
- Comprehensive testing is performed to verify compatibility and stability.
- Any breaking changes or deprecations in the Codebelt.Extensions.Xunit.App preview version are addressed.
- The test suite runs successfully with these new versions.
84-84: Caution: Significant update to Codebelt.Extensions.Xunit.App package.The update of Codebelt.Extensions.Xunit.App from version 9.0.0-preview.2 to 9.0.0-preview.8 is a more substantial change. The addition of
PrivateAssets="all"is appropriate for test-related packages.However, please note:
- This is still a preview version, which may introduce breaking changes or instabilities.
- Moving from preview.2 to preview.8 might include significant changes.
Ensure thorough testing with this new version. Run all tests and check for any deprecated or changed APIs:
#!/bin/bash # Run tests and check for any failures or warnings dotnet test --logger "console;verbosity=detailed" # Search for any usage of potentially deprecated APIs rg -i "deprecated" --type cs
73-73: LGTM: xunit package update.The update of xunit from version 2.9.0 to 2.9.2 is a good practice to keep dependencies current. This minor version update likely includes bug fixes and improvements.
To ensure compatibility, please run the test suite and verify that all tests pass with the new version. You can use the following command:
Codebelt.Extensions.Newtonsoft.Json.sln (4)
22-23: LGTM: New test project added correctly.The new test project
Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Testshas been added to the solution with a unique GUID and correct file path. This addition aligns with the existing project structure and naming conventions.
54-57: LGTM: Project configuration set up correctly.The configuration for the new
Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Testsproject has been properly set up for both Debug and Release builds. The settings are consistent with other projects in the solution, ensuring it will be built correctly in all configurations.
69-69: LGTM: Project correctly organized in the solution structure.The new
Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Testsproject has been properly added to the "test" solution folder. This maintains the organized structure of the solution, keeping test projects separate from source code.
22-23: Summary: New test project successfully integrated into the solution.The changes to the solution file correctly add the new
Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Testsproject. This addition aligns with the PR objectives mentioned in the summary, which included adding a new test project. The project is properly configured for both Debug and Release builds and is correctly organized within the solution structure. These changes maintain consistency with existing conventions and should integrate smoothly with the rest of the codebase.Also applies to: 54-57, 69-69
| @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ | |||
| </PropertyGroup> | |||
|
|
|||
| <PropertyGroup> | |||
| <Description>The Cuemon.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json namespace contains both types and extension methods that complements both the Cuemon.Extensions.Newtonsoft.Json/Cuemon.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json namespace while being an addition to the Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc namespace. Provides JSON formatters for ASP.NET Core MVC that is powered by Newtonsoft.Json.</Description> | |||
| <Description>The Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json namespace contains both types and extension methods that complements both the Codebelt.Extensions.Newtonsoft.Json/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json namespace while being an addition to the Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc namespace. Provides JSON formatters for ASP.NET Core MVC that is powered by Newtonsoft.Json.</Description> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Residual 'Cuemon' references found in project files.
Several project files still reference "Cuemon" outside of expected PackageReference contexts:
-
test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests.csproj:
<PackageReference Include="Cuemon.Extensions.AspNetCore.Authentication" Version="9.0.0-preview.9" /> -
src/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.csproj:
<PackageReference Include="Cuemon.Core" Version="9.0.0-preview.9" />
<PackageReference Include="Cuemon.IO" Version="9.0.0-preview.9" />
<Description>...complements the Cuemon.Extensions.AspNetCore/Cuemon.Extensions.Newtonsoft.Json namespace...</Description>
Please update these references to "Codebelt" to ensure complete namespace restructuring.
🔗 Analysis chain
Namespace update in Description looks good.
The change from "Cuemon" to "Codebelt" in the namespace references is consistent with the PR objectives. This appears to be part of a larger rebranding or restructuring effort.
Let's verify if there are any remaining occurrences of "Cuemon" in the project files that might need updating:
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for any remaining "Cuemon" occurrences in project files
# Expect: No occurrences of "Cuemon" in project files, except for PackageReferences
rg --type xml "Cuemon" --glob "*.csproj" -C 2
Length of output: 5164
| { "1st", "data value" } | ||
| }, | ||
| HelpLink = "https://www.savvyio.net/" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Inconsistent Data Key in Exception Data
In the exception's Data property, you're adding an entry with the key "1st":
Data =
{
{ "1st", "data value" }
},However, in your expected JSON response (lines 197-199), the data key is "key":
"data": {
"key": "data value"
},To ensure the test passes and reflects the intended behavior, update the key in the exception's Data to "key".
Apply this diff to correct the key:
-{ "1st", "data value" }
+{ "key", "data value" }| Assert.True(Match(""" | ||
| { | ||
| "error": { | ||
| "instance": "http://localhost/", | ||
| "status": 404, | ||
| "code": "NotFound", | ||
| "message": "Main exception - look out for inner!", | ||
| "failure": { | ||
| "type": "Cuemon.AspNetCore.Http.NotFoundException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "Main exception - look out for inner!", | ||
| "stack": [ | ||
| "at Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Formatters.ServiceCollectionExtensionsTest.<>c.<<AddNewtonsoftJsonExceptionResponseFormatter_ShouldCaptureException_RenderAsExceptionDescriptor_UsingNewtonsoftJson_WithSensitivityAll>*", | ||
| "--- End of stack trace from previous location ---", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Diagnostics.ExceptionHandler*" | ||
| ], | ||
| "headers": {}, | ||
| "statusCode": 404, | ||
| "reasonPhrase": "Not Found", | ||
| "inner": { | ||
| "type": "System.ArgumentException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "This is an inner exception message ... (Parameter 'app')", | ||
| "stack": [ | ||
| "at Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Formatters.ServiceCollectionExtensionsTest.<>c.<<AddNewtonsoftJsonExceptionResponseFormatter_ShouldCaptureException_RenderAsExceptionDescriptor_UsingNewtonsoftJson_WithSensitivityAll>*" | ||
| ], | ||
| "data": { | ||
| "1st": "data value" | ||
| }, | ||
| "paramName": "app" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "evidence": { | ||
| "request": { | ||
| "location": "http://localhost/", | ||
| "method": "GET", | ||
| "headers": { | ||
| "accept": "application/json", | ||
| "host": "localhost" | ||
| }, | ||
| "query": [], | ||
| "cookies": [], | ||
| "body": "" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "traceId": "*" | ||
| } | ||
| """.ReplaceLineEndings(), body.ReplaceLineEndings(), o => o.ThrowOnNoMatch = true)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Avoid Hardcoding Stack Traces in Assertions
Comparing exact stack traces in your assertions can make tests fragile, as stack traces may vary across different environments or with minor code changes. This can lead to unintended test failures unrelated to the functionality being tested.
Consider refactoring your assertions to focus on essential response data and exclude stack traces. You can:
- Use JSON parsing to deserialize the response and assert specific fields.
- Employ JSON schema validation to ensure the structure of the response is correct.
- Ignore dynamic fields like
stackor use patterns/wildcards to allow for variations.
| Assert.True(Match(""" | ||
| { | ||
| "type": "about:blank", | ||
| "title": "NotFound", | ||
| "status": 404, | ||
| "detail": "Main exception - look out for inner!", | ||
| "instance": "http://localhost/", | ||
| "traceId": "*", | ||
| "failure": { | ||
| "type": "Cuemon.AspNetCore.Http.NotFoundException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "Main exception - look out for inner!", | ||
| "stack": [ | ||
| "at Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Formatters.ServiceCollectionExtensionsTest.<>c.<<AddNewtonsoftJsonExceptionResponseFormatter_ShouldCaptureException_RenderAsProblemDetails_UsingNewtonsoftJson_WithSensitivityAll>*", | ||
| "--- End of stack trace from previous location ---", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Diagnostics.ExceptionHandler*" | ||
| ], | ||
| "headers": {}, | ||
| "statusCode": 404, | ||
| "reasonPhrase": "Not Found", | ||
| "inner": { | ||
| "type": "System.ArgumentException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "This is an inner exception message ... (Parameter 'app')", | ||
| "stack": [ | ||
| "at Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Formatters.ServiceCollectionExtensionsTest.<>c.<<AddNewtonsoftJsonExceptionResponseFormatter_ShouldCaptureException_RenderAsProblemDetails_UsingNewtonsoftJson_WithSensitivityAll>*" | ||
| ], | ||
| "data": { | ||
| "key": "data value" | ||
| }, | ||
| "paramName": "app" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "request": { | ||
| "location": "http://localhost/", | ||
| "method": "GET", | ||
| "headers": { | ||
| "accept": "application/json", | ||
| "host": "localhost" | ||
| }, | ||
| "query": [], | ||
| "cookies": [], | ||
| "body": "" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| """.ReplaceLineEndings(), body.ReplaceLineEndings(), o => o.ThrowOnNoMatch = true)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Avoid Hardcoding Stack Traces in Assertions
Similar to the previous test, hardcoding stack traces in the assertions can cause the tests to fail due to changes unrelated to the application's functionality.
It's recommended to adjust the assertions to focus on critical fields and exclude or generalize over the stack trace. This will make your tests more robust and maintainable.
| Assert.Equal(""" | ||
| { | ||
| "error": { | ||
| "status": 401, | ||
| "code": "Unauthorized", | ||
| "message": "The request has not been applied because it lacks valid authentication credentials for the target resource.", | ||
| "failure": { | ||
| "type": "Cuemon.AspNetCore.Http.UnauthorizedException", | ||
| "message": "The request has not been applied because it lacks valid authentication credentials for the target resource.", | ||
| "headers": {}, | ||
| "statusCode": 401, | ||
| "reasonPhrase": "Unauthorized", | ||
| "inner": { | ||
| "type": "System.Security.SecurityException", | ||
| "message": "Unable to authenticate Agent." | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| """.ReplaceLineEndings(), content.ReplaceLineEndings()); | ||
| } | ||
| else | ||
| { | ||
| Assert.Equal(""" | ||
| { | ||
| "error": { | ||
| "status": 401, | ||
| "code": "Unauthorized", | ||
| "message": "The request has not been applied because it lacks valid authentication credentials for the target resource." | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| """.ReplaceLineEndings(), content.ReplaceLineEndings()); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Avoid Hardcoding Stack Traces in Assertions
In this test, the assertion includes the full stack trace within the expected JSON content. This practice can lead to brittle tests, as stack traces can change with environment updates or minor code modifications.
To improve test reliability, consider:
- Parsing the JSON response and asserting only on necessary fields.
- Using partial matches or custom comparison logic to exclude the
stackfield. - Utilizing JSON schema validation to verify the response structure without relying on exact values of dynamic content.
| [Theory] | ||
| [InlineData(FaultSensitivityDetails.All)] | ||
| [InlineData(FaultSensitivityDetails.None)] | ||
| public async void AddNewtonsoftJsonExceptionResponseFormatter_AuthorizationResponseHandler_BasicScheme_ShouldRenderResponseInJsonByNewtonsoft_UsingAspNetBootstrapping(FaultSensitivityDetails sensitivityDetails) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Change Return Type from async void to async Task
The method AddNewtonsoftJsonExceptionResponseFormatter_AuthorizationResponseHandler_BasicScheme_ShouldRenderResponseInJsonByNewtonsoft_UsingAspNetBootstrapping is declared with a return type of async void, which is generally discouraged outside of event handlers. Using async void can lead to unobserved exceptions and makes it impossible to await the method, potentially causing unexpected behavior in test execution.
Consider changing the return type to async Task to properly handle asynchronous operations and improve test reliability.
Apply this diff to change the return type:
-public async void AddNewtonsoftJsonExceptionResponseFormatter_AuthorizationResponseHandler_BasicScheme_ShouldRenderResponseInJsonByNewtonsoft_UsingAspNetBootstrapping(FaultSensitivityDetails sensitivityDetails)
+public async Task AddNewtonsoftJsonExceptionResponseFormatter_AuthorizationResponseHandler_BasicScheme_ShouldRenderResponseInJsonByNewtonsoft_UsingAspNetBootstrapping(FaultSensitivityDetails sensitivityDetails)📝 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.
| public async void AddNewtonsoftJsonExceptionResponseFormatter_AuthorizationResponseHandler_BasicScheme_ShouldRenderResponseInJsonByNewtonsoft_UsingAspNetBootstrapping(FaultSensitivityDetails sensitivityDetails) | |
| public async Task AddNewtonsoftJsonExceptionResponseFormatter_AuthorizationResponseHandler_BasicScheme_ShouldRenderResponseInJsonByNewtonsoft_UsingAspNetBootstrapping(FaultSensitivityDetails sensitivityDetails) |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 67.38% 76.94% +9.55%
==========================================
Files 26 26
Lines 1015 1015
Branches 132 132
==========================================
+ Hits 684 781 +97
+ Misses 329 232 -97
Partials 2 2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (9)
test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Assets/SampleModel.cs (1)
7-9: LGTM: Well-defined property with appropriate data annotations.The
Nameproperty is correctly implemented with suitable data annotations. The [Required] attribute with a custom error message is a good practice.Consider adding a custom error message to the [StringLength] attribute for consistency and improved user feedback. For example:
[StringLength(100, ErrorMessage = "The name cannot exceed 100 characters.")]test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Assets/StatusCodesController.cs (5)
12-16: Consider adding a comment to explain the method's purpose.While the method correctly simulates a 400 Bad Request scenario, it would be helpful to add a comment explaining that this method is intended for testing purposes. This can improve code readability and maintainability.
Consider adding a comment like this:
/// <summary> /// Simulates a 400 Bad Request scenario for testing purposes. /// </summary> [HttpGet("400")] public IActionResult Get_400() { throw new BadRequestException(new ArgumentNullException()); }
18-88: Great consistent structure. Consider adding comments to all methods.The methods from
Get_401toGet_429are well-structured and consistently implemented. They correctly simulate various HTTP error scenarios, which is excellent for testing purposes.To further improve the code:
Consider adding summary comments to each method, similar to the suggestion for the
Get_400method. This will enhance code readability and maintainability.The consistent structure is commendable. It makes the code easy to understand and maintain.
90-108: Good complex error simulation. Consider a more descriptive method name.The
Get_XXXmethod provides an excellent simulation of a complex error scenario. The use of a try-catch block and the addition of extra data to the exception are good practices for testing comprehensive error handling.Suggestions for improvement:
Consider renaming the method to something more descriptive, such as
SimulateComplexErrororGetNestedExceptionScenario. This would make the purpose of the method clearer.You might want to add a comment explaining the specific scenario this method is simulating.
110-114: Good inclusion of a success scenario. Consider adding model validation.The
Postmethod provides a simple endpoint for testing successful POST requests, which is a good practice to include alongside error scenarios.Suggestions for improvement:
Consider adding model validation to ensure the incoming
SampleModelis valid before processing it. You can use data annotations on theSampleModelclass and then checkModelState.IsValidin this method.It might be helpful to add a comment explaining that this method is for testing successful POST requests.
Example of how you might implement these suggestions:
/// <summary> /// Simulates a successful POST request for testing purposes. /// </summary> [HttpPost("/")] public IActionResult Post(SampleModel model) { if (!ModelState.IsValid) { return BadRequest(ModelState); } return Ok(model); }
1-116: Excellent comprehensive coverage of status codes. Consider adding any missing common ones.The
StatusCodesControllerprovides a robust set of endpoints for testing various HTTP status code scenarios. The consistent structure and inclusion of both error and success cases make this a valuable asset for testing.Suggestions for further improvement:
Consider adding endpoints for any missing common status codes. For example, you might want to include:
- 500 Internal Server Error
- 502 Bad Gateway
- 503 Service Unavailable
You might want to add a comment at the class level explaining the purpose of this controller in the context of testing.
Overall, this is a well-designed controller that will be very useful for testing exception handling and response formatting.
test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/MvcBuilderExtensionsTests.cs (3)
50-51: Ensure correct media type in Accept headerIn lines 50-51, the Accept header is set to
"application/json". Since the tests are specifically using Newtonsoft.Json formatters, you might want to ensure that the media type aligns with the formatter's expected media type, such as"application/problem+json"or any custom media types you are handling.Consider verifying if the media type should be more specific to match the formatter expectations:
client.DefaultRequestHeaders.Accept.Add(MediaTypeWithQualityHeaderValue.Parse("application/json")); +// Possibly change to: +client.DefaultRequestHeaders.Accept.Add(MediaTypeWithQualityHeaderValue.Parse("application/problem+json"));
310-311: Consistent media type in Accept headerSimilar to the previous comment, in lines 310-311, ensure that the Accept header is correctly set to match the media type expected by the Newtonsoft.Json formatter.
Verify if the media type should be adjusted:
client.DefaultRequestHeaders.Accept.Add(MediaTypeWithQualityHeaderValue.Parse("application/json")); +// Possibly change to: +client.DefaultRequestHeaders.Accept.Add(MediaTypeWithQualityHeaderValue.Parse("application/problem+json"));
1-14: Organize using directives alphabeticallyFor better readability and maintainability, consider organizing the
usingdirectives alphabetically and grouping system namespaces separately from third-party namespaces.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
- test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Assets/SampleModel.cs (1 hunks)
- test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Assets/StatusCodesController.cs (1 hunks)
- test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests.csproj (1 hunks)
- test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/MvcBuilderExtensionsTests.cs (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (6)
test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Assets/SampleModel.cs (2)
1-4: LGTM: Appropriate namespace and using statement.The namespace follows the file path structure, which is a good practice. The using statement for data annotations is correctly included.
5-6: LGTM: Appropriate class declaration.The
SampleModelclass is correctly declared as public, which is suitable for a model class in a test project.test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests.csproj (2)
Line range hint
1-17: LGTM: Project file structure looks good.The overall structure of the project file is well-organized and follows good practices:
- Multi-targeting .NET 9.0 and 8.0 ensures good compatibility.
- The root namespace is correctly set to match the project structure.
- The project reference to the source project is appropriate for a test project.
8-10: Verify the necessity and version of the new package reference.The addition of the
Cuemon.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvcpackage (version 9.0.0-preview.9) aligns with the PR objectives of updating dependencies. However, please consider the following points:
- Ensure that this package is necessary for the tests in this project.
- The use of a preview version (9.0.0-preview.9) in a test project might be acceptable, but consider if a stable version would be more appropriate.
- Verify that this version is compatible with the other dependencies in the project, especially considering the target frameworks (net9.0 and net8.0).
To ensure consistency across the solution, let's check for other usages of this package:
✅ Verification successful
Package Reference Verified
The
Cuemon.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvcpackage (version9.0.0-preview.9) is only referenced intest/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests.csproj. Please ensure the following:
- Necessity: Confirm that this package is required for the tests in this project.
- Version Appropriateness: Consider using a stable version instead of a preview release to maintain project stability, unless the preview features are specifically needed.
- Compatibility: Verify that the package version is compatible with the targeted frameworks (
net9.0andnet8.0).🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for other occurrences of Cuemon.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc package rg --type xml 'PackageReference.*Cuemon\.Extensions\.AspNetCore\.Mvc'Length of output: 220
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for all occurrences of Cuemon.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc package in .csproj files rg 'PackageReference.*Cuemon\.Extensions\.AspNetCore\.Mvc' -g '*.csproj'Length of output: 316
test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/Assets/StatusCodesController.cs (1)
8-11: LGTM: Class declaration and attributes are correct.The
StatusCodesControllerclass is properly declared and decorated with the appropriate attributes for an ASP.NET Core API controller. The use of[ApiController]and[Route("[controller]")]follows best practices.test/Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests/MvcBuilderExtensionsTests.cs (1)
54-56: Avoid printing sensitive information in test outputWhile logging the response body in the test output (line 55) can be helpful for debugging, ensure that it does not contain any sensitive information that should not be exposed in logs.
| public class SampleModel | ||
| { | ||
| [Required(ErrorMessage = "This field is required.")] | ||
| [StringLength(100)] | ||
| public string Name { get; set; } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider enhancing the model for improved testability.
While the current implementation is sufficient for basic testing, consider the following enhancements to improve the model's usability in tests:
- Add a parameterless constructor and a constructor that sets the Name property.
- Override the ToString() method for easier debugging and logging.
Here's an example of how you could implement these suggestions:
public class SampleModel
{
[Required(ErrorMessage = "This field is required.")]
[StringLength(100, ErrorMessage = "The name cannot exceed 100 characters.")]
public string Name { get; set; }
public SampleModel() { }
public SampleModel(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return $"SampleModel {{ Name = {Name} }}";
}
}These additions would make the model more versatile for various testing scenarios.
| var body = await response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync(); | ||
| TestOutput.WriteLine(body); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Use Fluent Assertions for better readability
In line 54, you're capturing body as a string and printing it to the test output. Consider using Fluent Assertions or a similar library to enhance the readability of your assertions and provide more informative error messages when tests fail.
Example using Fluent Assertions:
body.Should().BeEquivalentTo(expectedJson);This enhances clarity and provides better failure messages.
| public class MvcBuilderExtensionsTests : Test | ||
| { | ||
| public MvcBuilderExtensionsTests(ITestOutputHelper output) : base(output) | ||
| { | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Remove empty constructor if not needed
The constructor defined in lines 19-21 is empty and does not add additional functionality beyond calling the base class constructor. If it's not necessary, consider removing it to reduce unnecessary code.
-public class MvcBuilderExtensionsTests : Test
-{
- public MvcBuilderExtensionsTests(ITestOutputHelper output) : base(output)
- {
- }
+public class MvcBuilderExtensionsTests : Test
+{Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| "code": "InternalServerError", | ||
| "message": "An unhandled exception was raised by *.", | ||
| "failure": { | ||
| "type": "System.NotSupportedException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "Main exception - look out for inner!", | ||
| "inner": { | ||
| "type": "System.ArgumentException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "This is an inner exception message ... (Parameter 'app')", | ||
| "data": { | ||
| "app": "serverError" | ||
| }, | ||
| "paramName": "app" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "traceId": "*" | ||
| } | ||
| """.ReplaceLineEndings(), body.ReplaceLineEndings(), o => o.ThrowOnNoMatch = true)); | ||
| break; | ||
| case FaultSensitivityDetails.FailureWithStackTrace: | ||
| Assert.True(Match(""" | ||
| { | ||
| "error": { | ||
| "instance": "http://localhost/statuscodes/XXX/serverError", | ||
| "status": 500, | ||
| "code": "InternalServerError", | ||
| "message": "An unhandled exception was raised by *.", | ||
| "failure": { | ||
| "type": "System.NotSupportedException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "Main exception - look out for inner!", | ||
| "stack": [ | ||
| "at Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Assets.StatusCodesController.Get_XXX(String app) *", | ||
| "at *", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ActionMethodExecutor.SyncActionResultExecutor.Execute*", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ControllerActionInvoker.InvokeActionMethodAsync()", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ControllerActionInvoker.Next(State& next, Scope& scope, Object& state, Boolean& isCompleted)", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ControllerActionInvoker.InvokeNextActionFilterAsync()", | ||
| "--- End of stack trace from previous location ---", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ControllerActionInvoker.Rethrow(ActionExecutedContextSealed context)", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ControllerActionInvoker.Next(State& next, Scope& scope, Object& state, Boolean& isCompleted)", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ControllerActionInvoker.InvokeInnerFilterAsync()", | ||
| "--- End of stack trace from previous location ---", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ResourceInvoker.<InvokeNextExceptionFilterAsync>*" | ||
| ], | ||
| "inner": { | ||
| "type": "System.ArgumentException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "This is an inner exception message ... (Parameter 'app')", | ||
| "stack": [ | ||
| "at Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Assets.StatusCodesController.Get_XXX(String app)*" | ||
| ], | ||
| "paramName": "app" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "traceId": "*" | ||
| } | ||
| """.ReplaceLineEndings(), body.ReplaceLineEndings(), o => o.ThrowOnNoMatch = true)); | ||
| break; | ||
| case FaultSensitivityDetails.Failure: | ||
| Assert.True(Match(""" | ||
| { | ||
| "error": { | ||
| "instance": "http://localhost/statuscodes/XXX/serverError", | ||
| "status": 500, | ||
| "code": "InternalServerError", | ||
| "message": "An unhandled exception was raised by *.", | ||
| "failure": { | ||
| "type": "System.NotSupportedException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "Main exception - look out for inner!", | ||
| "inner": { | ||
| "type": "System.ArgumentException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "This is an inner exception message ... (Parameter 'app')", | ||
| "paramName": "app" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "traceId": "*" | ||
| } | ||
| """.ReplaceLineEndings(), body.ReplaceLineEndings(), o => o.ThrowOnNoMatch = true)); | ||
| break; | ||
| case FaultSensitivityDetails.None: | ||
| Assert.True(Match(""" | ||
| { | ||
| "error": { | ||
| "instance": "http://localhost/statuscodes/XXX/serverError", | ||
| "status": 500, | ||
| "code": "InternalServerError", | ||
| "message": "An unhandled exception was raised by *." | ||
| }, | ||
| "traceId": "*" | ||
| } | ||
| """.ReplaceLineEndings(), body.ReplaceLineEndings(), o => o.ThrowOnNoMatch = true)); | ||
| break; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor switch statement to reduce code duplication
Similar to the previous test method, the switch statement from lines 317-551 contains repetitive code for each FaultSensitivityDetails case. Refactoring this code by extracting common logic and using a helper method or data-driven approach can improve maintainability and readability.
You can apply the same refactoring pattern as suggested earlier to this test method. By creating a method that returns the expected JSON based on the sensitivity level, you can simplify the switch statement. Here's how you might adjust the code:
public async Task OnException_ShouldCaptureException_RenderAsDefault_UsingNewtonsoftJson(FaultSensitivityDetails sensitivity)
{
using var response = await WebHostTestFactory.RunAsync(
// existing setup code
);
var body = await response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
TestOutput.WriteLine(body);
+ var expectedJson = GetExpectedJsonForSensitivity(sensitivity).ReplaceLineEndings();
+ Assert.True(Match(expectedJson, body.ReplaceLineEndings(), o => o.ThrowOnNoMatch = true));
}
+private string GetExpectedJsonForSensitivity(FaultSensitivityDetails sensitivity)
+{
+ return sensitivity switch
+ {
+ FaultSensitivityDetails.All => """
+ {
+ "error": {
+ "instance": "http://localhost/statuscodes/XXX/serverError",
+ // rest of the JSON string
+ },
+ "traceId": "*"
+ }
+ """,
+ // Other cases...
+ _ => throw new NotSupportedException($"Unhandled sensitivity: {sensitivity}")
+ };
+}This approach enhances code clarity and simplifies future updates.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| { | ||
| "type": "about:blank", | ||
| "title": "InternalServerError", | ||
| "status": 500, | ||
| "detail": "An unhandled exception was raised by *", | ||
| "instance": "http://localhost/statuscodes/XXX/serverError", | ||
| "traceId": "*", | ||
| "failure": { | ||
| "type": "System.NotSupportedException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "Main exception - look out for inner!", | ||
| "inner": { | ||
| "type": "System.ArgumentException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "This is an inner exception message ... (Parameter 'app')", | ||
| "data": { | ||
| "key": "serverError" | ||
| }, | ||
| "paramName": "app" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| """.ReplaceLineEndings(), body.ReplaceLineEndings(), o => o.ThrowOnNoMatch = true)); | ||
| break; | ||
| case FaultSensitivityDetails.FailureWithStackTrace: | ||
| Assert.True(Match(""" | ||
| { | ||
| "type": "about:blank", | ||
| "title": "InternalServerError", | ||
| "status": 500, | ||
| "detail": "An unhandled exception was raised by *", | ||
| "instance": "http://localhost/statuscodes/XXX/serverError", | ||
| "traceId": "*", | ||
| "failure": { | ||
| "type": "System.NotSupportedException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "Main exception - look out for inner!", | ||
| "stack": [ | ||
| "at Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Assets.StatusCodesController.Get_XXX(String app) *", | ||
| "at *", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ActionMethodExecutor.SyncActionResultExecutor.Execute*", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ControllerActionInvoker.InvokeActionMethodAsync()", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ControllerActionInvoker.Next(State& next, Scope& scope, Object& state, Boolean& isCompleted)", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ControllerActionInvoker.InvokeNextActionFilterAsync()", | ||
| "--- End of stack trace from previous location ---", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ControllerActionInvoker.Rethrow(ActionExecutedContextSealed context)", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ControllerActionInvoker.Next(State& next, Scope& scope, Object& state, Boolean& isCompleted)", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ControllerActionInvoker.InvokeInnerFilterAsync()", | ||
| "--- End of stack trace from previous location ---", | ||
| "at Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Infrastructure.ResourceInvoker.<InvokeNextExceptionFilterAsync>*" | ||
| ], | ||
| "inner": { | ||
| "type": "System.ArgumentException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "This is an inner exception message ... (Parameter 'app')", | ||
| "stack": [ | ||
| "at Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Assets.StatusCodesController.Get_XXX(String app)*" | ||
| ], | ||
| "paramName": "app" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| """.ReplaceLineEndings(), body.ReplaceLineEndings(), o => o.ThrowOnNoMatch = true)); | ||
| break; | ||
| case FaultSensitivityDetails.Failure: | ||
| Assert.True(Match(""" | ||
| { | ||
| "type": "about:blank", | ||
| "title": "InternalServerError", | ||
| "status": 500, | ||
| "detail": "An unhandled exception was raised by *", | ||
| "instance": "http://localhost/statuscodes/XXX/serverError", | ||
| "traceId": "*", | ||
| "failure": { | ||
| "type": "System.NotSupportedException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "Main exception - look out for inner!", | ||
| "inner": { | ||
| "type": "System.ArgumentException", | ||
| "source": "Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.Tests", | ||
| "message": "This is an inner exception message ... (Parameter 'app')", | ||
| "paramName": "app" | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| """.ReplaceLineEndings(), body.ReplaceLineEndings(), o => o.ThrowOnNoMatch = true)); | ||
| break; | ||
| case FaultSensitivityDetails.None: | ||
| Assert.True(Match(""" | ||
| { | ||
| "type": "about:blank", | ||
| "title": "InternalServerError", | ||
| "status": 500, | ||
| "detail": "An unhandled exception was raised by *", | ||
| "instance": "http://localhost/statuscodes/XXX/serverError", | ||
| "traceId": "*" | ||
| } | ||
| """.ReplaceLineEndings(), body.ReplaceLineEndings(), o => o.ThrowOnNoMatch = true)); | ||
| break; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Refactor switch statement to reduce code duplication
The switch statement from lines 57-280 contains repetitive code structures for each FaultSensitivityDetails case, with only slight variations in the expected JSON strings. This repetition can make the code harder to maintain and read. Consider refactoring this code by extracting the common logic and utilizing parameterized data or helper methods to handle the variations.
One possible approach is to create a data structure (e.g., a dictionary) that maps each FaultSensitivityDetails value to its corresponding expected JSON string. Then, you can use a single assertion that references the expected value from this data structure. Here's an example of how you might implement this:
public async Task OnException_ShouldCaptureException_RenderAsProblemDetails_UsingNewtonsoftJson(FaultSensitivityDetails sensitivity)
{
using var response = await WebHostTestFactory.RunAsync(
// existing setup code
);
var body = await response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
TestOutput.WriteLine(body);
+ var expectedJson = GetExpectedJsonForSensitivity(sensitivity).ReplaceLineEndings();
+ Assert.True(Match(expectedJson, body.ReplaceLineEndings(), o => o.ThrowOnNoMatch = true));
}
+private string GetExpectedJsonForSensitivity(FaultSensitivityDetails sensitivity)
+{
+ return sensitivity switch
+ {
+ FaultSensitivityDetails.All => """
+ {
+ "type": "about:blank",
+ "title": "InternalServerError",
+ // rest of the JSON string
+ }
+ """,
+ FaultSensitivityDetails.Evidence => """
+ {
+ "type": "about:blank",
+ "title": "InternalServerError",
+ // rest of the JSON string
+ }
+ """,
+ // Other cases...
+ _ => throw new NotSupportedException($"Unhandled sensitivity: {sensitivity}")
+ };
+}This refactoring reduces repetition and centralizes the expected JSON templates, making the code more maintainable.
Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
|
PR Classification
Dependency updates.
PR Summary
Added a new test project and updated various package references and configurations.
Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Json.Testsproject to the solution,Directory.Build.propsto upgradexunitandCodebelt.Extensions.Xunit.Apppackage versions,Directory.Build.targetsto replaceBUILD_BUILDNUMBERwithGITHUB_RUN_NUMBER,Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Mvc.Formatters.Newtonsoft.Json.csprojto reflect namespace change and updated package references,ServiceCollectionExtensionsTestclass with tests forAddNewtonsoftJsonExceptionResponseFormatterandAuthorizationResponseHandler.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Codebelt.Extensions.AspNetCore.Newtonsoft.Jsonto enhance testing capabilities.Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores