Repository navigation
test(ui): the Summarize Within test waits for its background run - #1343
Conversation
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review.
|
| Layer / File(s) | Summary |
|---|---|
Wait for tool run completion crates/ui-egui/tests/tool_field_lists.rs |
The test uses click_run instead of a direct Run-button click and a fixed three-step wait. |
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~5 minutes
Change: Bug fix
Possibly related PRs
- opengeos/RustGIS#1253: Introduced the test that this change updates.
- opengeos/RustGIS#1317: Added background tool execution and the
tool_runstate thatclick_runwaits to clear.
Suggested reviewers: pawelkra
Merge Risk: 
Minimal · up to 9b5b6
-
The test now waits for the background run to complete rather than relying on frame timing. No actionable merge-blocking risk is identified; mergeable subject to normal checks.
Pre-merge checks: 
5
-
Full details: Description check
-
Explanation
The description explains the failure, cause, fix, test evidence, and affected test. It is mostly complete, although it does not use the template headings explicitly or state the UI evidence section verbatim.
Full details: Docstring Coverage
-
Explanation
Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff with cyclomatic complexity of at least 2. Documentation-only edits and deletions within surviving functions are included; unchanged diff context and fully deleted functions are excluded. Analyzed 1 functions across 1 files.
-
Finishing Touches
-
Generate docstrings
-
- Commit to this branch
- Create a new PR
Generate unit tests (beta)
-
- Commit to this branch
- Create a new PR
-
- Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts
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.
A rabbit taps Run with care,
Then waits for the tool to be there.
No fixed steps to count,
Just completion to announce.
The test hops on, prepared.
Code reviewI found nothing worth raising in this PR. It is a two-line test change, and I checked the fix against the code it depends on. Bugs: none found. Confidence: high.
Security: none. Confidence: high. The change is test-only. Performance: none. Confidence: high. The wait polls every 5 ms with a 60-second cap, which is fine for a test. Quality: none worth raising now. Confidence: high. One optional note: if AGENTS.md: compliant. Confidence: high. Test code may use Prior review threads: none on this PR, so none were left alone. Change sizeCompared: the whole PR against main (merge base e0e1c77 to PR head 9b5b628).
|
📖 Docs preview
GitHub Pages takes a minute or two to publish a new commit. |
Main's
test / Test (ubuntu-latest)failed on e0e1c77 atcrates/ui-egui/tests/tool_field_lists.rs:497:gp.lastwasNoneafter Run.Cause: merge skew. #1317 moved Tools-pane runs to a background thread and added
click_run, which waits for the run to land. #1253 addedsummarize_within_statistics_offer_the_point_layers_fieldswith the old click-and-three-frames pattern. Its PR checks passed because they predate that interaction, and on main the result depends on whether the thread finishes within three frames.Fix: the test uses
click_run, like every other test in the file. Only the test changes; its assertions stay.Evidence: on an unloaded machine the old test passes. Pinned to one core with the machine under load, it failed 2 of 40 runs at the same line. With the fix, 0 of 40 under similar load, and all 16 tests in the file pass.
Summary by CodeRabbit