Chore/migrate tests

[ascandone]

No description provided.

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

🗂️ Base branches to auto review (1)

• main

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch chore/migrate-tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 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>, please review it.
  • Explain this complex logic.
  • 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 explain this code block.
  • @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 gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and explain its main purpose.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

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)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
• @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
• @coderabbitai auto-generate unit tests to generate unit tests for this PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration 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

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 66.02%. Comparing base (f4fdd84) to head (c660580).

Additional details and impacted files

@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           feat/specs-format      #75      +/-   ##
=====================================================
+ Coverage              65.98%   66.02%   +0.04%     
=====================================================
  Files                     39       39              
  Lines                   4662     4662              
=====================================================
+ Hits                    3076     3078       +2     
+ Misses                  1452     1451       -1     
+ Partials                 134      133       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[cursor]

Bug: Snapshot Fix Uses Incorrect Assertion Field

The fixSnapshot function incorrectly uses failedAssertion.Expected in its switch statement to identify the assertion type. This comparison is flawed as failedAssertion.Expected contains the expected value, not the assertion name. It should use failedAssertion.Assertion. Consequently, the attempt to update t.ExpectPostings with failedAssertion.Expected.([]interpreter.Posting) is also incorrect; failedAssertion.Expected is the string "expect.postings" in this context, causing a runtime panic. The snapshot should be updated using failedAssertion.Got.

internal/cmd/test.go#L71-L75

numscript/internal/cmd/test.go

Lines 71 to 75 in c660580

	if t.It == testResult.Result.It {
	switch failedAssertion.Expected {
	case "expect.postings":
	t.ExpectPostings = failedAssertion.Expected.([]interpreter.Posting)

Fix in Cursor • Fix in Web

---

Bug: Test Failure Flag Inverts Logic

The isTestFailed flag, used to count failed test files, has inverted logic. It currently checks if any test case passed (tc.Pass), causing files with passing tests to be incorrectly marked as failed. It should check if any test case failed (!tc.Pass).

internal/cmd/test.go#L265-L272

numscript/internal/cmd/test.go

Lines 265 to 272 in c660580

	// Count tests
	isTestFailed := slices.ContainsFunc(out.Cases, func(tc specs_format.TestCaseResult) bool {
	return tc.Pass
	})
	if isTestFailed {
	failedTestFiles += 1
	}

Fix in Cursor • Fix in Web

---

Was this report helpful? Give feedback by reacting with 👍 or 👎