Add support for new Vector type #74
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes involve enhancements to the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Client
participant ResultSetImpl
participant ResultSetScalarTypes
Client->>ResultSetImpl: Request deserialization
ResultSetImpl->>ResultSetScalarTypes: Check scalar type
alt If VALUE_VECTORF32
ResultSetImpl->>ResultSetImpl: Call deserializeVector
else Other types
ResultSetImpl->>ResultSetImpl: Handle other deserialization
end
ResultSetImpl-->>Client: Return deserialized data
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 using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
src/test/java/com/falkordb/GraphAPITest.java (2)
Line range hint
863-871: LGTM: testGeoPointLatLon method is well-implementedThe testGeoPointLatLon method effectively tests the creation and retrieval of a geographical point using latitude and longitude. The use of a helper method (assertTestGeoPoint) for verification is a good practice for code reuse.
Consider adding a test case with edge values (e.g., latitude: 90, longitude: 180) to ensure the function handles boundary cases correctly.
Line range hint
873-881: LGTM: testGeoPointLonLat method provides good coverageThe testGeoPointLonLat method effectively complements testGeoPointLatLon by testing the creation of a geographical point with longitude first, then latitude. This ensures that the order of coordinates doesn't affect the result.
To improve test coverage, consider adding a parameterized test that covers both latitude-longitude and longitude-latitude cases, as well as edge cases (e.g., poles, international date line). This could reduce code duplication and provide more comprehensive testing. Here's an example of how you could refactor this:
@ParameterizedTest @MethodSource("provideGeoPointTestCases") public void testGeoPoint(double lat, double lon, String order) { String query = String.format("CREATE (:restaurant {location: point({%s:%f, %s:%f})})", order.equals("latlon") ? "latitude" : "longitude", order.equals("latlon") ? lat : lon, order.equals("latlon") ? "longitude" : "latitude", order.equals("latlon") ? lon : lat); ResultSet rs = client.query(query); Assert.assertEquals(1, rs.getStatistics().nodesCreated()); Assert.assertEquals(1, rs.getStatistics().propertiesSet()); assertTestGeoPoint(); } private static Stream<Arguments> provideGeoPointTestCases() { return Stream.of( Arguments.of(30.27822306, -97.75134723, "latlon"), Arguments.of(30.27822306, -97.75134723, "lonlat"), Arguments.of(90, 180, "latlon"), Arguments.of(-90, -180, "lonlat") ); }This approach would allow you to test multiple scenarios with less code duplication.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
- src/main/java/com/falkordb/impl/resultset/ResultSetImpl.java (2 hunks)
- src/main/java/com/falkordb/impl/resultset/ResultSetScalarTypes.java (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/com/falkordb/GraphAPITest.java (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: CodeQL
src/main/java/com/falkordb/impl/resultset/ResultSetImpl.java
[notice] 266-266: Missing catch of NumberFormatException
Potential uncaught 'java.lang.NumberFormatException'.
🔇 Additional comments (3)
src/main/java/com/falkordb/impl/resultset/ResultSetScalarTypes.java (1)
17-18: LGTM! New scalar type added correctly.The addition of
VALUE_VECTORF32to the enum is correct and follows the existing pattern. This aligns with the PR objective of adding support for a new Vector type.Consider adding a brief comment to explain the purpose and usage of
VALUE_VECTORF32. For example:// Represents a 32-bit float vector type VALUE_VECTORF32;Please ensure that any relevant documentation (e.g., JavaDocs, README) is updated to reflect this new scalar type. Also, verify that any code assuming a fixed number of scalar types is updated accordingly.
To help with verification, you can run the following script to find potential areas that might need updating:
src/test/java/com/falkordb/GraphAPITest.java (2)
801-807: LGTM: testVecf32 method is well-implementedThe testVecf32 method correctly tests the vecf32 function by creating a vector and verifying its contents. The use of Assert statements is appropriate, checking both the result set size and the vector values.
Line range hint
801-881: Overall, the new test methods enhance the test suite effectivelyThe additions of testVecf32, testGeoPointLatLon, and testGeoPointLonLat methods significantly improve the test coverage by addressing vector and geographical point functionalities. The implementations are well-structured and provide good basic coverage of the new features.
To further enhance the test suite:
- Consider adding edge cases to the geographical point tests.
- Explore the possibility of using parameterized tests for more comprehensive and maintainable geographical point testing.
These changes will contribute to a more robust and thorough test suite for the GraphAPI functionality.
Fix testVecf32
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #74 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 72.54% 72.61% +0.06%
- Complexity 217 220 +3
============================================
Files 25 25
Lines 703 712 +9
Branches 64 64
============================================
+ Hits 510 517 +7
- Misses 157 159 +2
Partials 36 36 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
src/test/java/com/falkordb/GraphAPITest.java (3)
801-812: LGTM! Consider using a constant for the delta value.The testVecf32 method is well-implemented and correctly tests the vecf32 function. It checks both the size and individual values of the returned vector, which is good practice.
Consider defining a constant for the delta value (0.01) used in the float comparisons. This would make it easier to adjust the precision consistently across all assertions if needed in the future.
private static final float FLOAT_DELTA = 0.01f; // Then use it in the assertions: Assert.assertEquals(2.1f, vector.get(0), FLOAT_DELTA);
Line range hint
1001-1010: LGTM! Consider adding more specific assertions.The testGeoPointLatLon method correctly tests the creation of a node with a geographical point using latitude and longitude. It checks for successful node creation and property setting.
Consider adding more specific assertions within this method before calling assertTestGeoPoint. For example, you could check the exact number of properties set and verify that the node label is correct. This would make the test more robust and easier to debug if it fails.
Assert.assertEquals(1, rs.getStatistics().nodesCreated()); Assert.assertEquals(1, rs.getStatistics().propertiesSet()); Assert.assertEquals(1, rs.getStatistics().labelsAdded()); Assert.assertEquals("restaurant", rs.getStatistics().getStringValue(Label.LABELS_ADDED));
Line range hint
1012-1021: LGTM! Consider combining the two geo point tests.The testGeoPointLonLat method correctly tests the creation of a node with a geographical point using longitude and latitude. It's good that you're testing both latitude-longitude and longitude-latitude formats.
Consider combining testGeoPointLatLon and testGeoPointLonLat into a single parameterized test. This would reduce code duplication and make it easier to add more variations in the future. Here's an example of how you could do this:
@ParameterizedTest @MethodSource("geoPointTestCases") public void testGeoPoint(String queryFormat, double lat, double lon) { String query = String.format(queryFormat, lat, lon); ResultSet rs = client.query(query); Assert.assertEquals(1, rs.getStatistics().nodesCreated()); Assert.assertEquals(1, rs.getStatistics().propertiesSet()); assertTestGeoPoint(); } private static Stream<Arguments> geoPointTestCases() { return Stream.of( Arguments.of("CREATE (:restaurant {location: point({latitude:%f, longitude:%f})})", 30.27822306, -97.75134723), Arguments.of("CREATE (:restaurant {location: point({longitude:%f, latitude:%f})})", -97.75134723, 30.27822306) ); }This approach would make the tests more maintainable and easier to extend in the future.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- .sdkmanrc (1 hunks)
- src/test/java/com/falkordb/GraphAPITest.java (1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- .sdkmanrc
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/test/java/com/falkordb/GraphAPITest.java (1)
Line range hint
801-1021: Overall, good additions to the test suite.The new test methods (testVecf32, testGeoPointLatLon, and testGeoPointLonLat) are valuable additions to the GraphAPITest class. They improve the test coverage for vector and geographical point functionality, which aligns well with the PR objective of adding support for a new Vector type.
Here are some general observations and suggestions:
- The tests are well-structured and follow good testing practices.
- Consider using parameterized tests to reduce code duplication, especially for the geo point tests.
- Adding constants for commonly used values (like delta in float comparisons) could improve maintainability.
- The new tests integrate seamlessly with the existing test suite, which is a positive sign.
These additions will help ensure the reliability of the new Vector type support. Good job on expanding the test coverage!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- .github/workflows/maven.yml (1 hunks)
- src/main/java/com/falkordb/impl/resultset/ResultSetImpl.java (5 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
src/main/java/com/falkordb/impl/resultset/ResultSetImpl.java
[warning] 268-268: src/main/java/com/falkordb/impl/resultset/ResultSetImpl.java#L268
Added line #L268 was not covered by tests
[warning] 270-270: src/main/java/com/falkordb/impl/resultset/ResultSetImpl.java#L270
Added line #L270 was not covered by tests
🔇 Additional comments (4)
src/main/java/com/falkordb/impl/resultset/ResultSetImpl.java (4)
16-16: LGTM: Import added for CollectorsThe addition of
import java.util.stream.Collectors;is appropriate for the newdeserializeVectormethod that uses Java Streams.
161-161: LGTM: Improved Javadoc formattingThe added space after the
@paramtag in the Javadoc comment improves readability and aligns with common Java documentation practices.
250-251: LGTM: Added support for VALUE_VECTORF32The new case for
VALUE_VECTORF32in thedeserializeScalarmethod correctly calls thedeserializeVectormethod, maintaining consistency with the existing pattern in the switch statement.
262-274: LGTM: Efficient implementation of deserializeVectorThe new
deserializeVectormethod is well-implemented:
- It efficiently uses Java Streams to process the input.
- Proper error handling is in place for potential
NumberFormatException.- The implementation is concise and readable.
To ensure full test coverage, please add unit tests that cover the error handling scenario. This will help verify the behavior when invalid float values are encountered.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 268-268: src/main/java/com/falkordb/impl/resultset/ResultSetImpl.java#L268
Added line #L268 was not covered by tests
[warning] 270-270: src/main/java/com/falkordb/impl/resultset/ResultSetImpl.java#L270
Added line #L270 was not covered by tests
| @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ jobs: | |||
| # Label used to access the service container | |||
| falkordb: | |||
| # Docker Hub image | |||
| image: falkordb/falkordb:latest | |||
| image: falkordb/falkordb:edge | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Issues Detected with Using the 'edge' Tag for FalkorDB
The 'edge' version of FalkorDB is actively maintained with recent commits. However, there are multiple open issues that may affect the stability of your CI/CD pipeline:
- Recent Open Issues:
- Delete arc specific docker tags from dockerhub
- flushdb bug?
- Unexpected Exception Raised "Type mismatch: expected Integer but was Null"
- Index not being used for some Match queries.
Recommendations:
- Use a Specific Version Tag: For more predictable and stable builds, consider specifying a particular version of FalkorDB instead of using the 'edge' tag.
- Monitor Open Issues: If you choose to continue with the 'edge' tag, regularly review and address the open issues to mitigate potential risks.
- Compatibility Check: Ensure that your codebase is compatible with the changes and updates in the 'edge' version of FalkorDB.
🔗 Analysis chain
Consider the implications of using the 'edge' tag for FalkorDB
Changing the FalkorDB image from 'latest' to 'edge' allows testing against the most recent development version, which may include new features or bug fixes. However, this comes with potential risks:
- 'edge' versions are typically less stable and may introduce breaking changes.
- This could lead to inconsistent or failing tests if incompatibilities are introduced.
Consider the following recommendations:
- Ensure that your codebase is compatible with any changes in the 'edge' version of FalkorDB.
- For more predictable and reproducible builds, consider using a specific version tag instead of 'edge'.
- If you proceed with 'edge', implement a process to regularly review and update your code to accommodate FalkorDB changes.
To verify the impact of this change, you can run the following script:
This script will help you assess any recent changes or potential issues with the FalkorDB edge version that might affect your workflow.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any recent changes or issues with the FalkorDB edge version
# Check the latest commits and issues in the FalkorDB repository
echo "Recent commits in FalkorDB repository:"
gh repo view falkordb/falkordb --json updatedAt,defaultBranchRef --jq '.defaultBranchRef.name as $branch | "Latest commit on \($branch): \(.updatedAt)"'
echo -e "\nRecent issues in FalkorDB repository:"
gh issue list --repo falkordb/falkordb --limit 5 --state all
# Check if there are any open pull requests that might affect the edge version
echo -e "\nOpen pull requests that might affect the edge version:"
gh pr list --repo falkordb/falkordb --state open --limit 5
Length of output: 1641
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
VALUE_VECTORF32, enhancing data handling capabilities.Bug Fixes
Tests