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

Avoid test failure by not checking exact size of backup #5594

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 31, 2025

Conversation

agners
Copy link
Member

@agners agners commented Jan 31, 2025

Proposed change

This is a workaround for the fact that the backup size is not exactly the same every time. This is due to the fact that the inner gziped tar file can vary in size due to difference in json file (key order) and potentially also different field values (UUID, backup slug).

It seems that sorting the keys makes the actual difference today, but this has runtime overhead and might not catch all cases.

Simply check if size property is there and a number bigger than 0 instead.

Type of change

  • Dependency upgrade
  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (which adds functionality to the supervisor)
  • Breaking change (fix/feature causing existing functionality to break)
  • Code quality improvements to existing code or addition of tests

Additional information

  • This PR fixes or closes issue: fixes #
  • This PR is related to issue:
  • Link to documentation pull request:
  • Link to cli pull request:
  • Link to client library pull request:

Checklist

  • The code change is tested and works locally.
  • Local tests pass. Your PR cannot be merged unless tests pass
  • There is no commented out code in this PR.
  • I have followed the development checklist
  • The code has been formatted using Ruff (ruff format supervisor tests)
  • Tests have been added to verify that the new code works.

If API endpoints or add-on configuration are added/changed:

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Tests
    • Updated backup size verification in tests to check for non-zero size instead of exact value
    • Improved test assertions to accommodate dynamic backup content variations

This is a workaround for the fact that the backup size is not exactly
the same every time. This is due to the fact that the inner gziped tar
file can vary in size due to difference in json file (key order) and
potentially also different field values (UUID, backup slug).

It seems that sorting the keys makes the actual difference today, but
this has runtime overhead and might not catch all cases.

Simply check if size property is there and a number bigger than 0
instead.
@agners agners added the bugfix A bug fix label Jan 31, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 31, 2025

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@agners has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 11 minutes and 51 seconds before requesting another review.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2348aef and e36b7ca.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • tests/api/test_backups.py (1 hunks)
📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The pull request modifies the test_protected_backup function in the tests/api/test_backups.py file. The changes involve updating the assertions for the size_bytes attribute in the backup location attributes. Instead of checking for an exact size value, the test now verifies that the size_bytes is greater than zero, allowing for more flexible size verification due to potential variations in backup content.

Changes

File Change Summary
tests/api/test_backups.py Modified test_protected_backup function to use > 0 assertion for size_bytes instead of exact value checking

The modification allows the test to be more robust by ensuring the backup has a non-zero size, rather than expecting a precise byte count. This approach accommodates potential variations in backup generation while maintaining the verification of the backup's protected status.


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>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • 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 generate unit testing code 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 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 generate unit testing code.
    • @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.

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. (Beta)
  • @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 or @coderabbitai title 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.

Copy link
Member

@sairon sairon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good, won't have any potential side-effects as #5593 👍

@agners agners merged commit 28a87db into main Jan 31, 2025
20 checks passed
@agners agners deleted the dont-exactly-check-backup-size branch January 31, 2025 10:30
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 2, 2025
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants