Fixed extra prompt build caller.

[EmbeddedDevops1]

PR Type

Bug fix

---

Description

• Removed unnecessary call to test_gen.build_prompt() in the CoverAgent.init() method
• The prompt building is already handled properly in the run_test_gen() method where its result is actually used
• This change eliminates redundant processing and potential side effects
• Updated version number to reflect the bug fix

---

Changes walkthrough 📝

	Relevant files
Bug fix	CoverAgent.py Remove redundant prompt building call in initialization    cover_agent/CoverAgent.py Removed redundant call to test_gen.build_prompt() in init() method The removed call was unnecessary as the prompt is built later in run_test_gen() +0/-1
Configuration changes	version.txt Version bump to 0.2.10                                                                      cover_agent/version.txt Bumped version from 0.2.9 to 0.2.10 +1/-1

---

💡 PR-Agent usage: Comment /help "your question" on any pull request to receive relevant information

[EmbeddedDevops1]

⌛ Running regression test suite: https://github.com/qodo-ai/qodo-cover/actions/runs/12379255839

[EmbeddedDevops1]

Regression test alone is not nearly enough to approve an algo change.

Have you actually run this code in various scenarios, catched a breakpoint, and validated the indeed this line is not needed, and no new variables are initialized there ? (hint - it is needed)

I ran through a few test projects using the regression script. Here's why I'm thinking it's not needed. The function we're calling doesn't actually set anything at the class level:

    def build_prompt(self, failed_test_runs, language, testing_framework, code_coverage_report) -> dict:
        """
        Builds a prompt using the provided information to be used for generating tests.

        This method checks for the existence of failed test runs and then calls the PromptBuilder class to construct the prompt.
        The prompt includes details such as the source file path, test file path, code coverage report, included files,
        additional instructions, failed test runs, and the programming language being used.

        Returns:
            str: The generated prompt to be used for test generation.
        """
        # Check for existence of failed tests:
        if not failed_test_runs:
            failed_test_runs_value = ""
        else:
            failed_test_runs_value = ""
            try:
                for failed_test in failed_test_runs:
                    failed_test_dict = failed_test.get("code", {})
                    if not failed_test_dict:
                        continue
                    # dump dict to str
                    code = json.dumps(failed_test_dict)
                    error_message = failed_test.get("error_message", None)
                    failed_test_runs_value += f"Failed Test:\n```\n{code}\n```\n"
                    if error_message:
                        failed_test_runs_value += (
                            f"Test execution error analysis:\n{error_message}\n\n\n"
                        )
                    else:
                        failed_test_runs_value += "\n\n"
            except Exception as e:
                self.logger.error(f"Error processing failed test runs: {e}")
                failed_test_runs_value = ""

        # Call PromptBuilder to build the prompt
        self.prompt_builder = PromptBuilder(
            source_file_path=self.source_file_path,
            test_file_path=self.test_file_path,
            code_coverage_report=code_coverage_report,
            included_files=self.included_files,
            additional_instructions=self.additional_instructions,
            failed_test_runs=failed_test_runs_value,
            language=language,
            testing_framework=testing_framework,
            project_root=self.project_root,
        )

        return self.prompt_builder.build_prompt()

It returns a dict but we never actually store that into a variable:

self.test_gen.build_prompt(failed_test_runs, language, test_framework, coverage_report)

So what purpose does this serve? Are we just testing that the setup is good and no assertion failures are occurring? If that's the case then I would revert my last commit but I would make sure to add a comment stating exactly that in this MR.

[mrT23]

The main mistake was to merge the "Refactor" to the algo without my approval.
The order now just doesn't make sense, and is extremely error prone

both "test_validator" and "test_gen" contain different prompt object,
The "test_validator" object has outdated prompt (without 'test_framework' for example). If its used anywhere, its abug

algo flow should be clear and coherent, and doesn't need wrapping of these complicated classes that prevent from understanding what is actually going on

[mrT23]

(i deleted my old comment because after reviewing the complicated flow, I understood it was wrong, and the change here is justified.

But the main issue remains - the current structure is too complicated, and the flow is not clear enough. too many
self.init() ... which are just too abstract and not clear. Flow should be clear without going to each function and understanding every detail in it)

[mrT23]

/describe

[qodo-merge-pro]

PR Description updated to latest commit (6684306)

• Copy walkthrough table to "Files Changed" Tab