test: add test examples for prefixdb.go #22752
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ | ||
| package db_test | ||
|
|
||
| import ( | ||
| "testing" | ||
|
|
||
| "cosmossdk.io/store/db" | ||
| "cosmossdk.io/store/mock" | ||
| "github.com/stretchr/testify/require" | ||
| "go.uber.org/mock/gomock" | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| func TestPrefixDB(t *testing.T) { | ||
| mockCtrl := gomock.NewController(t) | ||
| defer mockCtrl.Finish() | ||
|
|
||
| mockDB := mock.NewMockKVStoreWithBatch(mockCtrl) | ||
| prefix := []byte("test:") | ||
| pdb := db.NewPrefixDB(mockDB, prefix) | ||
|
|
||
| key := []byte("key1") | ||
| value := []byte("value1") | ||
| mockDB.EXPECT().Set(gomock.Eq(append(prefix, key...)), gomock.Eq(value)).Return(nil) | ||
|
|
||
| err := pdb.Set(key, value) | ||
| require.NoError(t, err) | ||
|
|
||
| mockDB.EXPECT().Get(gomock.Eq(append(prefix, key...))).Return(value, nil) | ||
|
|
||
| returnedValue, err := pdb.Get(key) | ||
| require.NoError(t, err) | ||
| require.Equal(t, value, returnedValue) | ||
|
|
||
| mockDB.EXPECT().Has(gomock.Eq(append(prefix, key...))).Return(true, nil) | ||
|
|
||
| has, err := pdb.Has(key) | ||
| require.NoError(t, err) | ||
| require.True(t, has) | ||
|
|
||
| mockDB.EXPECT().Delete(gomock.Eq(append(prefix, key...))).Return(nil) | ||
|
|
||
| err = pdb.Delete(key) | ||
| require.NoError(t, err) | ||
|
|
||
| mockDB.EXPECT().Has(gomock.Eq(append(prefix, key...))).Return(false, nil) | ||
|
|
||
| has, err = pdb.Has(key) | ||
| require.NoError(t, err) | ||
| require.False(t, has) | ||
| } | ||
|
Comment on lines
+33
to
+49
There was a problem hiding this comment. 💡 Codebase verification Missing critical test coverage for interface methods The test file lacks coverage for several required interface methods:
The current test file only covers 🔗 Analysis chainAdd tests for missing interface methods The test file is missing coverage for several critical interface methods:
Let's verify the required interface methods: Let me gather more information about the existing test coverage: 🏁 Scripts executedThe following scripts were executed for the analysis: Script: #!/bin/bash
# Check interface methods that need test coverage
ast-grep --pattern 'type KVStore interface {
$$$
}'
# Check batch interface methods
ast-grep --pattern 'type KVStoreWithBatch interface {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 1780 Script: #!/bin/bash
# Check existing test coverage for Iterator and ReverseIterator
rg -A 5 "func Test.*Iterator" store/db/prefixdb_test.go
# Check for batch operations tests
rg -A 5 "func Test.*Batch" store/db/prefixdb_test.go
# Check BasicKVStore interface to understand all required methods
ast-grep --pattern 'type BasicKVStore interface {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 832 |
||
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Add test cases for error scenarios and edge cases
The current test coverage for Set/Get operations could be enhanced by adding:
Example test cases to add: