#1155: fix Fbe::FakeOctokit#issue for fix-missing-who judge

[Yegorov]

This PR fix error in judges-action:

RuntimeError: fix-missing-who/stale-who doesn't match '/fb/f[stale]':
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<fb version="0.16.8" size="125">
  <f>
    <issue t="I">94</issue>
    <repository t="I">695</repository>
    <what t="S">pull-was-opened</what>
    <where t="S">github</where>
    <who t="I">526301</who>
  </f>
</fb>

A similar problem is currently observed in other pull requests:

• https://github.com/zerocracy/judges-action/actions/runs/18930367271/job/54045993997?pr=1167#step:6:331

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Enhanced test coverage for issue retrieval workflows with improved validation of response formats and edge cases.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

A new case branch for issue number 94 was added to Fbe::FakeOctokit#issue, returning a PR-like hash structure without a user field. A corresponding test was added to verify this behavior.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
FakeOctokit issue method lib/fbe/octo.rb	Added case branch for issue number 94 returning a specially crafted hash with id, repo, pull_request (with merged_at: nil), and created_at fields
FakeOctokit test suite test/fbe/test_octo.rb	Added test_fetch_fake_issue_without_user test verifying issue 94 returns the expected structure without a user field

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

• Single case branch addition with a static hash return value
• Test follows straightforward assertion pattern

Possibly related PRs

• judges-action#652: fix Fbe::FakeOctokit #250: Also modifies Fbe::FakeOctokit#issue and its tests to change returned fake issue hash for specific issue numbers
• #1155: fix user property in Fbe::FakeOctokit#issue and Fbe::FakeOctokit#list_issues #344: Modifies the same method; related PR adds user field handling to the default branch while this PR handles issue 94 without user
• judges-action#1034: fix Fbe::FakeOctokit, make Fbe.octo#with_disable_auto_paginate #309: Adds special-case branches to Fbe::FakeOctokit#issue returning crafted issue/PR-like hashes for different issue numbers

Poem

🐰 A ninety-four joins the fake kit's song,
PR-less and userless, where it belongs,
No merging needed, just a crafted reply,
The rabbit hops on—another test passes by! ✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 25.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title Check	✅ Passed	The PR title "#1155: fix Fbe::FakeOctokit#issue for fix-missing-who judge" is directly and fully related to the changeset. The title accurately identifies the specific method being modified (Fbe::FakeOctokit#issue), references the issue number (#1155), and provides context about the judge being fixed. The code changes add a case branch for issue 94 to this exact method, and the test verifies the new behavior, which aligns precisely with what the title promises.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

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

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

test/fbe/test_octo.rb (1)

696-707: Add a comment explaining why issue 94 lacks a user field.

The implementation correctly provides a test fixture for an issue without a user, which addresses the PR objective. However, for maintainability, consider adding a brief comment explaining why this specific case omits the :user field.

   def issue(repo, number)
     case number
     when 94
+      # Special case: simulates an issue/PR without a user field
+      # to test judge behavior when user information is missing
       {
         id: 42,

lib/fbe/octo.rb (1)

696-707: Consider documenting the rationale for the userless issue.

The new case for issue 94 correctly returns a structure without a :user field, which aligns with the PR objective to fix the fix-missing-who judge test scenario. This allows testing edge cases where user information might be absent.

For improved code clarity, consider adding a brief inline comment explaining why issue 94 is special:

   def issue(repo, number)
     case number
     when 94
+      # Simulates an issue without user field for testing edge cases
       {
         id: 42,

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 36a94ce and c8924fb.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• lib/fbe/octo.rb (1 hunks)
• test/fbe/test_octo.rb (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🧬 Code graph analysis (1)

test/fbe/test_octo.rb (1)

lib/fbe/octo.rb (3)

• o (288-290)
• octo (44-232)
• issue (694-756)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

test/fbe/test_octo.rb (1)

427-440: LGTM! Well-structured test for userless issue scenario.

The test correctly validates that issue 94 lacks a :user field using refute_includes and employs pattern matching to confirm the expected structure. This provides good coverage for the edge case.

[Yegorov]

@yegor256 check, please.

[yegor256]

@rultor release, tag is 0.41.4

[rultor]

@rultor release, tag is 0.41.4

@yegor256 OK, I will release it now. Please check the progress here.

[rultor]

@rultor release, tag is 0.41.4

@yegor256 Done! FYI, the full log is here (took me 4min).

[0crat]

@Yegorov Thanks for the contribution! You've earned +20 points for this: +24 as a basis; -4 for contributing less than 30 hits-of-code (you had 27). According to our work policy, contributions under 30 hits-of-code receive a penalty to encourage more substantial contributions. Please, keep them coming with a bit more code next time! Your running balance is +487; don't forget to check your Zerocracy balance too.