-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
feat: add command line interface #72
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Jinzhe Zeng <jinzhe.zeng@rutgers.edu>
WalkthroughWalkthroughThe changes introduce enhancements to the Changes
Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI Files selected for processing (2)
Additional context usedGitHub Check: codecov/patch
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? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
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)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #72 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 84.15% 78.49% -5.67%
==========================================
Files 5 9 +4
Lines 707 758 +51
==========================================
Hits 595 595
- Misses 112 163 +51 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
Signed-off-by: Jinzhe Zeng <jinzhe.zeng@rutgers.edu>
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.
Actionable comments posted: 3
Signed-off-by: Jinzhe Zeng <jinzhe.zeng@rutgers.edu>
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.
Actionable comments posted: 3
Signed-off-by: Jinzhe Zeng <jinzhe.zeng@rutgers.edu>
Signed-off-by: Jinzhe Zeng <jinzhe.zeng@rutgers.edu>
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.
Actionable comments posted: 3
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (2)
tests/test_cli.py (2)
12-22
: Enhance test coverage by verifying command output.Currently, the test only checks if the command runs without errors. It would be more comprehensive to verify the output of the command.
+ result = subprocess.run( + [ + "dargs", + "check", + "-f", + "dargs._test.test_arguments", + str(this_directory / "test_arguments.json"), + str(this_directory / "test_arguments.json"), + ], + capture_output=True, + text=True + ) + self.assertIn("expected_output", result.stdout)
12-44
: Improve robustness by handling potential exceptions.Consider adding exception handling to make the test more robust.
+ try: + subprocess.check_call( + [ + "dargs", + "check", + "-f", + "dargs._test.test_arguments", + str(this_directory / "test_arguments.json"), + str(this_directory / "test_arguments.json"), + ] + ) + except subprocess.CalledProcessError as e: + self.fail(f"subprocess.check_call failed with {e}")
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
check
function.Documentation
Tests