Conversation
WalkthroughAdds a TessokuBookProvider class and registers it in provider presets/groups, introduces Tessoku Book mock fixtures and test cases, updates tests to include and re-export the provider, and adds a planning document for expanding and refactoring ContestTableProvider tests. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
autonumber
participant Tests as Test harness / UI
participant Group as ContestTableProviderGroup
participant Provider as TessokuBookProvider
participant Classifier as classifyContest
participant Generator as TableGenerator
rect rgb(240,248,255)
Tests->>Group: request provider "tessokuBook"
Group->>Provider: instantiate / request rows
end
rect rgb(245,255,240)
Provider->>Classifier: classifyContest(contest_id)
Classifier-->>Provider: ContestType.TESSOKU_BOOK
Provider->>Provider: setFilterCondition() → filter tessoku-book tasks
Provider->>Generator: generate rows using displayConfig (hide headers/round labels, show indices)
Generator-->>Tests: table rows / rendered structure
end
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes
Poem
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✨ Finishing touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-01/add_and_refactoring_tests_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md(1 hunks)src/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.ts(3 hunks)src/test/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.test.ts(3 hunks)src/test/lib/utils/test_cases/contest_table_provider.ts(2 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)
- GitHub Check: preview
🔇 Additional comments (7)
src/test/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.test.ts (2)
33-34: LGTM! Mock correctly handles the new contest type.The mock for
tessoku-bookis consistent with other contest type classifications in the test suite.
357-493: Excellent test coverage for TessokuBookProvider!The test suite comprehensively validates all aspects of the provider:
- Filtering logic and metadata
- Display configuration matching the grid layout requirements
- Proper handling of mixed problem sources (math_and_algorithm, typical90, abc)
- Correct alphanumeric sorting across sections (A01-A77, B01-B69, C01-C20)
- Edge cases (empty input, mixed contest types)
The tests follow established patterns from Typical90Provider and maintain consistency with the existing test suite.
src/test/lib/utils/test_cases/contest_table_provider.ts (1)
199-298: Well-structured test data for TessokuBook.The test fixture properly represents the mixed-source nature of Tessoku Book problems, covering:
- Multiple problem sources (tessoku_book, math_and_algorithm, typical90, dp, abc)
- All three sections (A, B, C) with representative samples
- Various submission statuses for comprehensive testing
The export is correctly structured for use in the test suite.
src/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.ts (3)
242-269: LGTM! TessokuBookProvider implementation follows established patterns.The implementation is consistent with other single-contest providers (Typical90, EDPC, TDPC):
- Filtering logic correctly uses
classifyContestfor type-based filtering- Display configuration appropriately hides headers and round labels while showing task indices
- Table width configuration (
2xl:w-1/7) accommodates the large number of problems- Metadata accurately reflects the contest name and abbreviation
516-523: Preset registration is correct and consistent.The TessokuBook preset follows the established pattern for single-contest providers, with appropriate metadata and provider registration.
550-550: Export correctly added to provider groups.The
tessokuBookentry properly exposes the TessokuBook provider group for application usage.docs/dev-notes/2025-11-01/add_and_refactoring_tests_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md (1)
1-833: Well-documented implementation plan.This planning document provides excellent context for the TessokuBookProvider implementation, including specifications, test strategies, and lessons learned. The documentation will be valuable for future provider additions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-01/add_and_refactoring_tests_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md (1)
948-956: Add a language tag to the process diagram code block.markdownlint flags this fence (MD040). Label it (e.g.,
text) so the doc passes lint and renders consistently.-``` +```text フェーズ1（計画・テスト設計） ↓ フェーズ1.5（実装） ↓ フェーズ2（テスト強化・既存プロバイダー検証） ↓ フェーズ3（最適化・ドキュメント同期）
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-01/add_and_refactoring_tests_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md(1 hunks)src/test/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.test.ts(6 hunks)src/test/lib/utils/test_cases/contest_table_provider.ts(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.18.1)
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-01/add_and_refactoring_tests_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md
947-947: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)
- GitHub Check: preview
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
src/test/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.test.ts (2)
81-161: Excellent refactoring: Parameterized tests reduce duplication.The use of
describe.each()to test common behavior across ABCLatest20RoundsProvider, ABC319OnwardsProvider, and ABC212ToABC318Provider is a solid improvement. This approach:
- Reduces code duplication
- Ensures consistent test coverage across similar providers
- Makes it easier to add new common test cases
The structure maintains readability while being more maintainable.
555-598: Nice refactoring: EDPC/TDPC parameterization reduces duplication.The parameterized tests for EDPCProvider and TDPCProvider eliminate ~60 lines of duplicate code while maintaining full test coverage. The structure is clean and easy to extend for additional similar providers.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-01/add_and_refactoring_tests_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md(1 hunks)src/test/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.test.ts(6 hunks)src/test/lib/utils/test_cases/contest_table_provider.ts(2 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- src/test/lib/utils/test_cases/contest_table_provider.ts
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)
- GitHub Check: preview
🔇 Additional comments (8)
src/test/lib/utils/contest_table_provider.test.ts (7)
14-14: LGTM: TessokuBookProvider properly imported.The TessokuBookProvider is correctly added to the imports alongside other provider classes.
33-34: LGTM: Mock correctly handles tessoku-book contest type.The mock function properly maps
'tessoku-book'toContestType.TESSOKU_BOOK, ensuring test isolation.
417-430: LGTM: TessokuBookProvider filtering test is comprehensive.The test correctly verifies that only
tessoku-bookcontest tasks are included and that tasks from other contests are properly excluded. The use of mixed task sources (abc123,tessoku_book_a,math_and_algorithm_ai,typical90_a) provides good coverage.
490-503: LGTM: Header ID ordering test is thorough.This test properly verifies that header IDs are returned in ascending order across all sections (A01, A06, A77, B07, B63, C09). The explicit ordering validation with
toEqual()ensures sort stability.
517-530: Excellent boundary testing for section ranges.This test validates all section boundaries (A01-A77, B01-B69, C01-C20) comprehensively. Testing the exact start and end values for each section helps catch off-by-one errors and ensures the implementation handles edge cases correctly.
539-552: LGTM: Mixed contest type filtering is properly tested.The test correctly validates that when multiple contest types are present, only
tessoku-booktasks are retained. The length assertion (toHaveLength(3)) combined with theevery()check provides strong validation.
460-477: No issues found - test correctly uses valid TaskResult property.The test on line 475 correctly uses
task_idas the property name. The TaskResult type, which extends Task, includes thetask_idproperty defined in the Task interface, so theexpect.objectContaining({ task_id: 'math_and_algorithm_ai' })assertion will properly validate that the returned object contains the expected task identifier.docs/dev-notes/2025-11-01/add_and_refactoring_tests_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md (1)
534-762: LGTM: Implementation report is comprehensive and valuable.The completed checklist, performance metrics, and lessons learned sections provide excellent documentation of the implementation process. The measured efficiency gains (31 minutes vs. 5 days planned) and the learning curve improvements (0 debug cycles in phases 2-3) demonstrate effective iterative development.
The integration of lessons learned from previous work (
task_results.test.ts) into this implementation is particularly noteworthy and should serve as a template for future test development.
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-01/add_and_refactoring_tests_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-01/add_and_refactoring_tests_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md
Show resolved
Hide resolved
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-01/add_and_refactoring_tests_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-01/add_and_refactoring_tests_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md (2)
315-376: Consider documenting mock data ordering strategy.The mock data fixture is intentionally unsorted (A01, A06, A27, A29, A39, A63, A77, B07, B16, B28, B63, C09, C18), which appears designed to verify that the provider's sorting logic works correctly. However, this isn't explicitly stated in the commentary. Adding a brief note explaining why the fixture is unsorted would clarify the test design intent for future maintainers.
Suggested addition to line 312-313:
モックは `src/test/lib/utils/test_cases/contest_table_provider.ts` に統合管理： +// Note: Mock data is intentionally unsorted to verify provider-level sorting behavior
708-714: Provide context for thedescribe.each()consolidation strategy.The Phase 3 consolidation example (lines 708-714) compresses EDPC and TDPC tests into a parameterized describe block. While this improves maintainability, consider adding a note about why EDPC and TDPC were candidates for consolidation (e.g., >90% test logic overlap mentioned at line 701) and why others (like ABC) were not fully consolidated, to guide future decisions on parameterization.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Cache: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
Knowledge base: Disabled due to data retention organization setting
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-01/add_and_refactoring_tests_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md(1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)
- GitHub Check: preview
🔇 Additional comments (5)
docs/dev-notes/2025-11-01/add_and_refactoring_tests_for_contest_table_provider/plan.md (5)
72-307: Documentation test specifications are comprehensive and well-aligned.All 11 test cases are clearly specified with proper examples, expected values, and verification methods. Code examples correctly use
ContestType.TESSOKU_BOOK,task_id, andtask_table_indexthroughout (addressing all past review comments). Test coverage spans filtering, metadata, display config, sorting, boundaries, and edge cases—solid specification completeness.
534-556: Verify Phase 3 test consolidation maintained code coverage.The document reports Phase 3 consolidation compressed EDPC/TDPC tests by 60 lines using
describe.each()while maintaining 77 total tests. Line 552 states "全63テスト合格" for Phase 1, but later mentions 77 total tests post-Phase 3. Ensure the final test count (77) is accurate and that no coverage gaps were introduced during consolidation, especially in boundary and edge-case scenarios.Can you confirm the final passing test count after all three phases? The document shows 63 tests after Phase 1 but references 77 tests in the Phase 3 summary.
628-671: Implementation phase learnings are well-documented and actionable.Sections 10–11 effectively capture lessons from each phase, including the type safety issue (lines 640–641), reference-driven development benefits (line 657), and the strategic use of parameterized tests (line 671). The progression from debugging challenges in Phase 1 to zero failures in Phases 2–3 demonstrates clear learning and best practice application. This section will be valuable for future provider implementations.
584-592: Risk mitigation strategies are concrete and well-addressed.The risk table identifies four key concerns (sort order ambiguity, section gaps, mock conflicts, Vitest limitations) with practical mitigations:
- Test 9 provides explicit 0-padding verification (line 258–262)
- Centralized fixture management prevents conflicts
- Workaround for
toBeSorted()is documented (line 591)These risks are either testing-time validation or fixtures/workarounds—all addressed without external dependencies.
1-49: Document structure, objectives, and scope are clear and well-defined.The overview effectively establishes context (TessokuBookProvider integration), states clear objectives (unit tests, refactoring, test design guide), and defines scope with an organized table. The document is written in clear Japanese with good use of markdown formatting. Scope boundaries (e.g., excluding E2E and integration tests) are explicitly stated.
1 participant
close #2776
See #662
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Tests
Documentation