feat:add test for redis commands, including LPush, RPushX, BgSave, FlushDb and SetEx

[tsinow]

add list test in list_test.go
add bgsave test ,flushdb test and info test in server_test.go
add setex test in string_test.go

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Enhanced test coverage for Redis list operations, including LPush and RPushX commands.
  • Added integration tests for server commands: BgSave, FlushDb, and Info.
  • Introduced a test case for the SetEx method to validate key expiration functionality.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes introduce new test cases across multiple integration test files for a Redis client. These tests enhance coverage for list operations, server commands, and string commands. Specifically, they validate the functionality of LPush, RPushX, BgSave, FlushDb, Info, and SetEx commands, ensuring that they behave as expected under various conditions.

Changes

Files	Change Summary
tests/integration/list_test.go	Added a test case for LPush and RPushX commands, verifying element insertion, error handling for incorrect type retrieval, and list state after operations.
tests/integration/server_test.go	Introduced test cases for BgSave, FlushDb, and Info commands, checking background saving, database flushing, and server responsiveness.
tests/integration/string_test.go	Added a test case for the SetEx method, verifying key-value setting with expiration and subsequent key expiration handling.

Possibly related PRs

• fix:Segmentation fault in zremrangebyrank #2896: The changes in this PR enhance the testing coverage for the ZRemRangeByRank command, which is relevant to the overall testing improvements in the main PR that adds tests for Redis commands like BgSave, FlushDb, and Info.

Suggested labels

📒 Documentation

Poem

In the garden of code, we hop with glee,
New tests bloom bright, as far as we see.
With lists and strings, our checks are precise,
Redis commands dance, oh, isn't it nice?
Bugs, beware, for we're ready to play,
Happy testing, dear friends, on this fine day! 🐇✨

---

Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0acbc38 and 69c5a54.

Files selected for processing (1)

• tests/integration/server_test.go (3 hunks)

Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• tests/integration/server_test.go

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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 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 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.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)

tests/integration/server_test.go (3)

164-188: LGTM! The test covers the happy path well.

The test sets the correct preconditions, invokes BgSave, and verifies the postconditions thoroughly.

Consider making the wait time configurable to avoid flakiness on slower systems:

-time.Sleep(5 * time.Second)
+waitTime := 5 * time.Second
+if os.Getenv("CI") != "" {
+    waitTime = 10 * time.Second  
+}
+time.Sleep(waitTime)

---

190-198: The test looks good!

It verifies that FlushDb executes successfully and deletes all keys.

Consider setting a few keys before invoking FlushDb to make the test more robust:

+Expect(client.Set(ctx, "key1", "value1", 0).Err()).NotTo(HaveOccurred())
+Expect(client.Set(ctx, "key2", "value2", 0).Err()).NotTo(HaveOccurred())
+
res := client.Do(ctx, "flushdb")  
Expect(res.Err()).NotTo(HaveOccurred())
Expect(res.Val()).To(Equal("OK"))

---

484-494: The test is a good start but can be improved.

The test verifies that Info returns a non-empty response which is a good smoke test.

A few suggestions to improve the test:

1. The 1-second wait after each Info invocation seems unnecessary. Consider removing it.

info := client.Info(ctx)
-time.Sleep(1 * time.Second)
Expect(info.Err()).NotTo(HaveOccurred())
Expect(info.Val()).NotTo(Equal(""))

info = client.Info(ctx, "all")  
-time.Sleep(1 * time.Second)
Expect(info.Err()).NotTo(HaveOccurred())
Expect(info.Val()).NotTo(Equal(""))

2. Instead of just checking for a non-empty response, validate the response format or check for key information that is expected to be present. For example:

info := client.Info(ctx)
Expect(info.Err()).NotTo(HaveOccurred())  
Expect(info.Val()).To(ContainSubstring("redis_version"))
+Expect(info.Val()).To(ContainSubstring("tcp_port"))
+Expect(info.Val()).To(ContainSubstring("os"))

info = client.Info(ctx, "all")
Expect(info.Err()).NotTo(HaveOccurred())
Expect(info.Val()).To(ContainSubstring("redis_version"))  
+Expect(info.Val()).To(ContainSubstring("allocator_stats"))

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0137483 and 611768c.

Files selected for processing (3)

• tests/integration/list_test.go (1 hunks)
• tests/integration/server_test.go (3 hunks)
• tests/integration/string_test.go (1 hunks)

Additional comments not posted (2)

tests/integration/string_test.go (1)

800-817: LGTM!

The test case for SetEx with a 10-second expiration is well-structured and covers the essential aspects. It correctly verifies the behavior of setting a key with an expiration time and ensures that the key is properly expired after the specified duration.

tests/integration/list_test.go (1)

1295-1316: LGTM!

The test case logic is correct and covers the expected behavior of LPush, RPushX, and LRange commands. The error handling for the Get command on a list is also properly tested.