Refactor and improve json_prolog/2 predicate #782
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #782 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 41.88% 42.77% +0.88%
==========================================
Files 108 108
Lines 5028 5078 +50
==========================================
+ Hits 2106 2172 +66
+ Misses 2812 2796 -16
Partials 110 110
|
ccamel
force-pushed
the
refactor/json_prolog_improvements
branch
2 times, most recently
from
9e2fc0b
to
6ffb303
Compare
|
Note Reviews pausedUse the following commands to manage reviews:
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant modifications to the JSON handling logic within the Prolog engine. Key changes include the renaming of parameters, restructuring of the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
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
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (9)
x/logic/prolog/list.go (2)
3-5: Consider keeping the single import on one line.While the multi-line import is valid, it's more common in Go to keep single imports on one line for better readability. Consider reverting to:
import "github.com/axone-protocol/prolog/engine"This aligns with Go's standard formatting practices.
24-49: Excellent implementation of theForEachfunction.The function is well-structured, handles errors appropriately, and provides a useful abstraction for iterating over Prolog lists. It aligns well with the PR objectives and enhances the package's functionality.
Consider a minor optimization to simplify the loop structure:
func ForEach(list engine.Term, env *engine.Env, f func(v engine.Term, hasNext bool) error) error { iter, err := ListIterator(list, env) if err != nil { return err } for iter.Next() { elem := iter.Current() hasNext := iter.Next() if err := f(elem, hasNext); err != nil { return err } if !hasNext { break } iter.Back() // Move back one step as we've advanced twice } return nil }This change eliminates the need for the initial
ifcheck and simplifies the loop structure. Theiter.Back()call is added to correct the iterator position after checking for the next element.x/logic/prolog/list_test.go (3)
1-11: LGTM! Consider avoiding dot import for better clarity.The package declaration and imports look good. However, consider avoiding the dot import for the
goconveypackage:-import ( - ... - . "github.com/smartystreets/goconvey/convey" -) +import ( + ... + "github.com/smartystreets/goconvey/convey" +)This change would improve code clarity by making it explicit where
Conveyand other functions come from.
22-30: Consider usinggoconveyassertions for the empty list case.While the logic is correct, the test can be improved by using
goconveyassertions instead oft.Errorf. This would make the test consistent with the rest of the file and provide better error messages.Consider refactoring like this:
{ description: "Empty list", list: engine.NewAtom("[]"), f: func(_ engine.Term, _ bool) error { c.So(false, ShouldBeTrue, "Function should not be called for empty list") return nil }, },This change ensures that if the function is called unexpectedly, the test will fail with a clear
goconveyassertion message.
41-61: LGTM! Consider simplifying the closure for better readability.The "List with elements" test case is well-designed and covers important aspects of the
ForEachfunction. The use of a closure to maintain state across function calls is clever.To improve readability, you might consider simplifying the closure:
{ description: "List with elements", list: engine.List(engine.NewAtom("a"), engine.NewAtom("b"), engine.NewAtom("c")), f: func() func(v engine.Term, hasNext bool) error { values := []string{"a", "b", "c"} i := 0 return func(v engine.Term, hasNext bool) error { c.So(i, ShouldBeLessThan, len(values)) got, err := AssertAtom(v, env) c.So(err, ShouldBeNil) c.So(got.String(), ShouldEqual, values[i]) c.So(hasNext, ShouldEqual, i < len(values)-1) i++ return nil } }(), wantError: nil, },This version moves the increment of
ito the end of the function, eliminating the need fordefer. It's a minor change but might make the code slightly easier to follow.x/logic/prolog/error.go (1)
48-49: LGTM! Consider enhancing the comment.The addition of
AtomKTypeKeyValuealigns well with the PR objectives, particularly the change in encoding key-value pairs. The naming convention is consistent with other atom type declarations in the file.Consider enhancing the comment to provide more context, such as:
// AtomKTypeKeyValue is the term used to indicate the key-value type. // This is used in the new encoding of key-value pairs using the '=' functor.x/logic/prolog/json.go (1)
28-37: Consider adding unit tests forAssertJSONTo ensure the correctness and reliability of the
AssertJSONfunction, consider adding unit tests that cover both valid and invalid cases.x/logic/prolog/json_test.go (1)
57-62: Remove unusedwantResultfield from test casesIn
TestAssertJSON, thewantResultfield in the test cases struct is declared but not utilized in the assertions. Removing this unused field will clean up the code and eliminate any potential confusion.Apply this diff to remove the unused field:
cases := []struct { description string input engine.Term wantError error - wantResult string }{ { description: "valid JSON object", input: AtomJSON.Apply(engine.NewAtom("valid")), wantError: nil, },x/logic/predicate/json.go (1)
96-96: Increase test coverage for new code pathsThe static analysis has flagged that several new lines are not covered by tests. These lines include error handling and edge cases critical to the JSON encoding and decoding logic. Improving test coverage will help ensure that these code paths work as expected and will prevent regressions in the future.
Would you like assistance in identifying specific test cases or in writing tests to cover these lines?
Also applies to: 121-121, 124-124, 137-137, 141-141, 145-145, 165-165, 168-168, 176-176, 184-184, 199-199, 208-208, 228-229, 237-238, 267-267, 276-276, 290-290
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 96-96: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L96
Added line #L96 was not covered by tests
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
docs/predicate/json_prolog_2.mdis excluded by!docs/predicate/**/*.md
📒 Files selected for processing (10)
- x/logic/predicate/json.go (3 hunks)
- x/logic/predicate/json_test.go (9 hunks)
- x/logic/prolog/assert.go (1 hunks)
- x/logic/prolog/assert_test.go (1 hunks)
- x/logic/prolog/atom.go (1 hunks)
- x/logic/prolog/error.go (2 hunks)
- x/logic/prolog/json.go (1 hunks)
- x/logic/prolog/json_test.go (1 hunks)
- x/logic/prolog/list.go (2 hunks)
- x/logic/prolog/list_test.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
x/logic/predicate/json.go
[warning] 96-96: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L96
Added line #L96 was not covered by tests
[warning] 111-112: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L111-L112
Added lines #L111 - L112 were not covered by tests
[warning] 121-121: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L121
Added line #L121 was not covered by tests
[warning] 124-124: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L124
Added line #L124 was not covered by tests
[warning] 137-137: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L137
Added line #L137 was not covered by tests
[warning] 141-141: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L141
Added line #L141 was not covered by tests
[warning] 145-145: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L145
Added line #L145 was not covered by tests
[warning] 165-165: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L165
Added line #L165 was not covered by tests
[warning] 168-168: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L168
Added line #L168 was not covered by tests
[warning] 176-176: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L176
Added line #L176 was not covered by tests
[warning] 184-184: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L184
Added line #L184 was not covered by tests
[warning] 199-199: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L199
Added line #L199 was not covered by tests
[warning] 208-208: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L208
Added line #L208 was not covered by tests
[warning] 228-229: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L228-L229
Added lines #L228 - L229 were not covered by tests
[warning] 237-238: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L237-L238
Added lines #L237 - L238 were not covered by tests
[warning] 267-267: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L267
Added line #L267 was not covered by tests
[warning] 276-276: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L276
Added line #L276 was not covered by tests
[warning] 290-290: x/logic/predicate/json.go#L290
Added line #L290 was not covered by tests
🔇 Additional comments (27)
x/logic/prolog/list.go (1)
Line range hint
1-49: Overall, excellent additions to theprologpackage.The new
ForEachfunction is a valuable addition that aligns well with the PR objectives. It provides a clean and efficient way to iterate over Prolog lists, enhancing the package's functionality. The implementation is robust, with proper error handling and use of existing utilities likeListIterator.The only minor suggestion is to consider the import statement formatting and the small optimization in the
ForEachfunction's loop structure. These changes would further improve the code's readability and efficiency.Great work on this implementation!
x/logic/prolog/list_test.go (3)
13-78: Well-structured test function and test cases!The
TestForEachfunction is correctly declared, and the test case structure is well-designed. It covers various scenarios including empty list, non-list term, list with elements, and error handling. This comprehensive approach ensures thorough testing of theForEachfunction.
80-91: Well-structured test execution loop!The test execution loop is well-implemented. It correctly iterates over all test cases, uses
Conveyfor proper test organization, and performs appropriate error checking based on thewantErrorfield of each test case. This structure ensures that each test case is executed independently and that the results are clearly reported.
1-91: Excellent test coverage and structure for the ForEach function!This test file provides comprehensive coverage for the
ForEachfunction, including edge cases and error scenarios. The use ofgoconveyfor BDD-style testing enhances readability and maintainability. The suggested improvements are minor and aimed at consistency and slight readability enhancements.Great job on writing thorough and well-structured tests!
x/logic/prolog/atom.go (2)
39-41: LGTM: Addition of AtomKeyValue aligns with PR objectivesThe introduction of
AtomKeyValueis a positive change that aligns well with the PR objectives. It implements the use of the=functor for encoding key-value pairs, which enhances readability and consistency with SWI-Prolog's standard encoding practices. The comment clearly explains its purpose and usage.
Line range hint
1-41: Verify the removal of AtomEmptyArrayThe AI summary mentions the removal of
AtomEmptyArray, which aligns with the PR objective of uniformly encoding empty arrays using the empty-list atom[]. However, this change is not visible in the provided code snippet. Could you please confirm ifAtomEmptyArrayhas been removed from this file?Additionally, it appears that
AtomEmptyList(line 16) might now be used for representing empty arrays. Can you verify if this is the case?To help verify these changes, you can run the following script:
✅ Verification successful
Removal of
AtomEmptyArrayConfirmedThe
AtomEmptyArrayidentifier has been successfully removed fromx/logic/prolog/atom.go. TheAtomEmptyListis now being utilized consistently across the codebase to represent empty arrays, aligning with the PR objectives.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the removal of AtomEmptyArray and the usage of AtomEmptyList # Test 1: Check if AtomEmptyArray is still present in the file echo "Checking for AtomEmptyArray:" rg "AtomEmptyArray" x/logic/prolog/atom.go # Test 2: Check the usage of AtomEmptyList in the codebase echo "Checking usage of AtomEmptyList:" rg "AtomEmptyList" --type goLength of output: 747
x/logic/prolog/error.go (3)
Line range hint
1-145: Overall, the changes look good and align with the PR objectives.The modifications improve consistency in atom declarations and enhance the handling of JSON and key-value pairs. The suggested verifications will help ensure that these changes don't introduce unintended side effects. The minor improvements in comments will further enhance code clarity and maintainability.
61-62: LGTM! Verify impact and consider documentation update.The changes to
AtomValidEncodingimprove clarity and consistency. The new examples in the comment provide better context.Please verify that changing
"valid_encoding"to"encoding"doesn't break existing code. Run the following script to check for any remaining usages of"valid_encoding":#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining usages of "valid_encoding" # Test: Search for "valid_encoding" usage rg --type go '"valid_encoding"'Consider updating any related documentation or user guides that might reference the old
"valid_encoding"term to reflect this change.
51-51: LGTM! Verify impact on existing code.The modification of
AtomTypeJSONto useengine.NewAtom("json")instead ofAtomJSONaligns with the PR objectives and ensures consistency with other atom type declarations.Please verify that this change doesn't break any existing code that might have been using
AtomJSON. Run the following script to check for any remaining usages ofAtomJSON:x/logic/prolog/json.go (4)
7-11: Consolidate common term applications into variablesGreat job defining
nullTerm,trueTerm, andfalseTermvariables. This enhances performance by avoiding repeated calls toAtomAt.Applyand improves code readability.
16-16: Use precomputednullTerminJSONNullfunctionReturning
nullTermdirectly makes theJSONNullfunction more efficient and avoids unnecessary computations.
22-25: SimplifyJSONBoolfunction with precomputed termsUtilizing
trueTermandfalseTermin theJSONBoolfunction simplifies the code and enhances performance.
28-37: IntroduceAssertJSONfunction for type assertionThe new
AssertJSONfunction provides a clear and efficient way to assert that a term is a JSON object. It improves error handling by returning a type error when the term does not match the expected format.x/logic/prolog/json_test.go (2)
12-24:TestJSONNullfunction is correctly implementedThe test accurately verifies that
JSONNull()returns the expected JSON null atom. The use ofComparefor term comparison is appropriate.
54-91:TestAssertJSONfunction effectively covers various scenariosThe
TestAssertJSONfunction thoroughly tests theAssertJSONfunction with multiple cases, including valid inputs and expected errors. The assertions correctly validate the outcomes based on the input provided.x/logic/prolog/assert.go (2)
157-158: LGTM! FunctionAssertPaircorrectly delegates toassertTuple2WithFunctor.The refactoring improves code reuse by utilizing
assertTuple2WithFunctorwith appropriate parameters.
174-178: LGTM! Enhanced flexibility inassertTuple2WithFunctor.Modifying
assertTuple2WithFunctorto acceptfunctorandfunctorTypeas parameters increases its reusability for different tuple structures.x/logic/prolog/assert_test.go (1)
427-427:⚠️ Potential issueFix syntax error in test case initialization
In the test case
"a key-value pair with non-atom key", thetermfield is incorrectly initialized. It currently has a syntax error due to an extra comma and missingAtomKeyValue.Apply, which results in invalid syntax and incorrect test setup.Apply this diff to fix the syntax error:
- term: engine.Integer(42), StringToAtom("value")), + term: AtomKeyValue.Apply(engine.Integer(42), StringToAtom("value")),Likely invalid or redundant comment.
x/logic/predicate/json_test.go (9)
70-104: Refactored key-value representations enhance readabilityThe test cases in lines 70-104 have been updated to use
=instead of-for key-value pairs in Prolog terms. This change aligns with standard Prolog syntax and improves code readability.
174-174: Standardized empty array representationLine 174 updates the handling of empty arrays to use
[], conforming to Prolog's list notation and ensuring consistency in array representation.
205-238: Expanded test coverage for malformed JSON inputsThe new test cases between lines 205-238 effectively test the handling of various malformed JSON inputs. This enhancement improves the robustness of error handling in the
json_prolog/2predicate.
276-304: Enhanced object conversion from Prolog to JSONUpdates in lines 276-304 refine the conversion of Prolog terms to JSON, especially for objects with multiple attributes and special characters. These changes ensure accurate serialization and alignment with expected JSON formats.
Line range hint
310-343: Improved error detection for invalid Prolog termsThe test cases from lines 310-343 introduce checks for invalid Prolog structures when converting to JSON. This ensures that type errors and incorrect key-value definitions are properly detected and reported.
354-361: Corrected number array conversion to JSONLines 354-361 verify the conversion of Prolog arrays of numbers to JSON. The updates confirm that numerical arrays are accurately serialized, maintaining data integrity.
412-414: Accurate handling of empty Prolog listsLine 412 ensures that empty Prolog lists are correctly converted to JSON arrays, enhancing consistency between Prolog lists and JSON array representations.
476-482: Consistency in unification regardless of formattingThe test case in lines 476-482 confirms that the
json_prolog/2predicate correctly unifies JSON and Prolog terms even when formatting varies. This reinforces the predicate's reliability in different input scenarios.
551-586: Comprehensive bidirectional conversion tests for complex structuresThe test cases from lines 551-586 add thorough evaluations of complex nested structures during JSON-Prolog conversions. These tests improve confidence in the predicate's ability to handle intricate data forms, including nested objects, arrays, and special values like
nulland booleans.
|
@coderabbitai pause |
✅ Actions performedReviews paused. |
Object keys are no longer sorted in json_prolog/2. The original order of keys is now preserved to maintain consistency with the input structure.
Empty arrays in Prolog are now consistently encoded using the empty-list atom [].
…n_prolog/2 and align with the encoding convention used in SWI-Prolog.
…lue encoding change
ccamel
force-pushed
the
refactor/json_prolog_improvements
branch
from
6ffb303
to
6a1d677
Compare
Purpose
This PR introduces a series of refactors for the
json_prolog/2predicate to improve its behaviour and alignment with common Prolog and JSON encoding conventions:=functor instead of-, improving readability and aligning with SWI-Prolog’s standard encoding practices.Impact
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
ForEachfunction for iterating over list elements.Bug Fixes
Tests
Documentation