Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adding getWorkers method #35

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 26, 2024
Merged

Adding getWorkers method #35

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 26, 2024

Conversation

msmakouz
Copy link
Member

@msmakouz msmakouz commented Feb 26, 2024

Q A
Bugfix?
Breaks BC?
New feature?

The property with workers is hidden and a getter has been added to obtain it.

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Refactor
    • Improved the security and integrity of the Workers feature by restricting direct access to the workers list.
  • Tests
    • Added comprehensive tests to ensure the reliability of retrieving workers information.

@msmakouz msmakouz added the enhancement New feature or request label Feb 26, 2024
@msmakouz msmakouz self-assigned this Feb 26, 2024
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 26, 2024

Walkthrough

This update focuses on enhancing the encapsulation and immutability of the Workers class by changing the accessibility and mutability of its $workers property. Previously public, the property is now private and readonly, ensuring it cannot be altered directly from outside the class. To access the workers array, a new method getWorkers() has been introduced. Additionally, the update includes the creation of unit tests specifically designed to validate the functionality of this new method under various conditions.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
src/Informer/Workers.php Changed $workers property to private readonly; added getWorkers() method.
tests/.../WorkersTest.php Added unit tests for testing the getWorkers method under various scenarios.

🐰✨
Changes abound, the code does hop,
From public to private, the access does stop.
With tests anew, we check the flow,
Ensuring getWorkers does rightly show.
In the world of code, where rabbits dare,
We leap with joy, for quality we care.
🌟🐾

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?

Share

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>.
    • Generate unit-tests for this file.
  • 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 generate unit tests for this file.
    • @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 generate interesting stats about this repository from git and render them as a table.
    • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit tests.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

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 as PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • The JSON schema for the configuration file is available here.
  • 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/coderabbit-overrides.v2.json

CodeRabbit Discord Community

Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 0

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0014c41 and f5f28b9.
Files selected for processing (2)
  • src/Informer/Workers.php (1 hunks)
  • tests/Unit/Informer/WorkersTest.php (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 3
src/Informer/Workers.php (2)
  • 13-13: The change to make the $workers property private and readonly is a good practice for encapsulation, ensuring that the property can only be modified within the class constructor and accessed through specific methods. This aligns well with the principles of object-oriented design.
  • 17-23: The getWorkers method is correctly implemented to provide access to the workers array. It adheres to the encapsulation principle by allowing external entities to retrieve the array without directly accessing the private property. The method signature and return type are clear and consistent with the expected functionality.
tests/Unit/Informer/WorkersTest.php (1)
  • 13-22: The testGetWorkers method is well-structured and tests two scenarios: 1) Retrieving workers from an empty Workers instance, and 2) Retrieving workers from a Workers instance initialized with a predefined array of Worker objects. The use of assertEquals for both scenarios is appropriate, ensuring that the getWorkers method returns the expected results. This test method effectively validates the functionality of the getWorkers method under different conditions.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 26, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 52.96%. Comparing base (0014c41) to head (f5f28b9).

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                3.x      #35      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     52.56%   52.96%   +0.40%     
- Complexity       99      100       +1     
============================================
  Files            11       11              
  Lines           234      236       +2     
============================================
+ Hits            123      125       +2     
  Misses          111      111              

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

@msmakouz msmakouz merged commit 8efc721 into 3.x Feb 26, 2024
9 checks passed
@msmakouz msmakouz deleted the feature/improve-informer-workers branch February 26, 2024 11:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
2 participants