Skip to content

fix(mcp): use result in error message instead of nil err in create test#3763

Open
Ankitsinghsisodya wants to merge 1 commit into
knative:mainfrom
Ankitsinghsisodya:fix/mcp-create-test-nil-err-message
Open

fix(mcp): use result in error message instead of nil err in create test#3763
Ankitsinghsisodya wants to merge 1 commit into
knative:mainfrom
Ankitsinghsisodya:fix/mcp-create-test-nil-err-message

Conversation

@Ankitsinghsisodya
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Problem

In TestTool_Create_Args, after a successful client.CallTool call, the
error branch reads:

if result.IsError {
    t.Fatal(err) // err is nil here
}

CallTool returned (result, nil)err is guaranteed nil at this point
since it was already checked on the lines above. If result.IsError ever
triggers, t.Fatal(nil) prints <nil>, giving zero diagnostic information
about what actually failed.

Fix

Replace with the pattern used consistently across every other tool test in
this package:

if result.IsError {
    t.Fatalf("unexpected error result: %v", result)
}

No behaviour change — this only affects the failure message when the test
fails.

Updated the error handling in the TestTool_Create_Args test to provide a more descriptive message when an unexpected error result occurs. This enhances the clarity of test failures and aids in debugging.
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings May 16, 2026 13:19
@knative-prow
Copy link
Copy Markdown

knative-prow Bot commented May 16, 2026

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Ankitsinghsisodya
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign jrangelramos for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@knative-prow knative-prow Bot requested review from dsimansk and jrangelramos May 16, 2026 13:19
@knative-prow knative-prow Bot added the size/XS 🤖 PR changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label May 16, 2026
@knative-prow
Copy link
Copy Markdown

knative-prow Bot commented May 16, 2026

Hi @Ankitsinghsisodya. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a knative member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work.

Tip

We noticed you've done this a few times! Consider joining the org to skip this step and gain /lgtm and other bot rights. We recommend asking approvers on your previous PRs to sponsor you.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@knative-prow knative-prow Bot added the needs-ok-to-test 🤖 Needs an org member to approve testing label May 16, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull request overview

Note

Copilot was unable to run its full agentic suite in this review.

Fixes an incorrect test failure path in TestTool_Create_Args by reporting the actual tool execution result rather than reusing a stale err value.

Changes:

  • Replace t.Fatal(err) with a more informative t.Fatalf(...) when result.IsError is true.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

}
if result.IsError {
t.Fatal(err)
t.Fatalf("unexpected error result: %v", result)
@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented May 16, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 56.95%. Comparing base (2bbf9fe) to head (076ab1f).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3763      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   57.06%   56.95%   -0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         181      181              
  Lines       21145    21145              
==========================================
- Hits        12067    12043      -24     
- Misses       7855     7882      +27     
+ Partials     1223     1220       -3     
Flag Coverage Δ
e2e 35.91% <ø> (ø)
e2e go 31.46% <ø> (ø)
e2e node 27.25% <ø> (ø)
e2e python 31.84% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
e2e quarkus 27.37% <ø> (ø)
e2e rust 26.75% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
e2e springboot 25.29% <ø> (ø)
e2e typescript 27.35% <ø> (ø)
e2e-config-ci ?
integration 17.35% <ø> (-0.04%) ⬇️
unit macos-14 45.06% <ø> (ø)
unit macos-latest 45.06% <ø> (ø)
unit ubuntu-24.04-arm 45.31% <ø> (ø)
unit ubuntu-latest 46.01% <ø> (ø)
unit windows-latest 45.10% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

needs-ok-to-test 🤖 Needs an org member to approve testing size/XS 🤖 PR changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants