Chore/improve test event api coverage

[radomir-mijovic]

Description

This PR adds test coverage for required fields in the API payload, verifying that they are present, contain valid values, and are not null. It ensures stricter validation and improves the reliability of API requests.

Testing

• [X ] The code quality is at a minimum required level of quality, readability, and performance.
• [X ] I have thoroughly tested my changes.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

"""

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces new functionality to the event API tests by enhancing payload validation. It adds a dictionary for error messages and a variable defining required fields in the CreateEventsTestCase class. Three test methods are implemented to ensure that missing or empty fields during event creation and updates return the correct error messages. These changes improve the validation mechanisms for input payloads.

Changes

File	Change Summary
lego/.../tests/test_events_api.py	Added _test_payload_error_messages and PAYLOAD_FIELDS variables; introduced three test methods (test_fields_required_on_create, test_fields_required_on_update, test_empty_fields_in_payload) to validate payload requirements.

Sequence Diagram(s)

sequenceDiagram
    participant Test as TestCase Method
    participant API as API Endpoint
    participant Validator as Payload Validator

    Test->>API: Send request for event creation/update with missing/empty fields
    API->>Validator: Validate payload using PAYLOAD_FIELDS
    Validator-->>API: Return error messages (_test_payload_error_messages)
    API-->>Test: Respond with error messages
    Test->>Test: Assert expected error responses

Loading

"""

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 6c1c818 and 75ec06f.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• lego/apps/events/tests/test_events_api.py (4 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)

lego/apps/events/tests/test_events_api.py

542-542: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

550-550: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

584-584: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

589-589: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertIn

Replace assertIn(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

593-593: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

🔇 Additional comments (5)

lego/apps/events/tests/test_events_api.py (5)

230-236: Well-structured dictionary for consistent error message testing.

This dictionary provides a centralized way to manage expected error messages, making tests more maintainable and consistent.

---

521-529: Well-defined list of required fields for better test structure.

This class attribute clearly defines the fields that must be validated in the test cases, with proper type annotation using typing.ClassVar.

---

539-546: Good test for validating required fields during event creation.

This test ensures that all required fields in the event payload are properly validated when creating a new event.

🧰 Tools

🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)

542-542: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

547-554: Comprehensive validation for required fields during event updates.

This test parallels the creation test but focuses on update operations, ensuring consistent validation across both endpoints.

🧰 Tools

🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)

550-550: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

555-597: Thorough testing of empty field validation across multiple scenarios.

This test handles both creation and update endpoints, and validates different error types (blank fields, date format issues, etc.) for comprehensive coverage.

Note that the misspelled "desciption" on line 575 appears to be intentional to test that the server properly handles missing required fields.

🧰 Tools

🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)

584-584: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

589-589: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertIn

Replace assertIn(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

593-593: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

✨ Finishing Touches

• 📝 Generate Docstrings

---

🪧 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.
• @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: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 94cf036 and 6c1c818.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• lego/apps/events/tests/test_events_api.py (3 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)

lego/apps/events/tests/test_events_api.py

520-528: Mutable class attributes should be annotated with typing.ClassVar

(RUF012)

---

541-541: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

549-549: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

583-583: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

588-588: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertIn

Replace assertIn(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

592-592: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

🔇 Additional comments (4)

lego/apps/events/tests/test_events_api.py (4)

229-235: Good addition to centralize error messages for validation tests.

Storing error messages in a dictionary makes the code more maintainable and ensures consistent message validation across tests.

---

538-545: Comprehensive test for required fields during event creation.

This test ensures that all required fields are properly validated when attempting to create an event with an empty payload.

🧰 Tools

🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)

541-541: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

546-553: Comprehensive test for required fields during event updates.

This test ensures that all required fields are properly validated when attempting to update an event with an empty payload.

🧰 Tools

🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)

549-549: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

554-596: Thorough test for empty fields validation in payloads.

This test verifies the API's handling of empty field values across both POST and PUT operations, checking different validation error types based on field requirements.

Note the intentional misspelling of "desciption" at line 574 tests how the API handles missing required fields.

🧰 Tools

🪛 Ruff (0.8.2)

583-583: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

588-588: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertIn

Replace assertIn(...) with assert ...

(PT009)

---

592-592: Use a regular assert instead of unittest-style assertEqual

Replace assertEqual(...) with assert ...

(PT009)