Skip to content

test(graph): cover site-less relationship rows on the embedded engine - #3530

Open
vitali87 wants to merge 1 commit into
pr-split/fix-2879-siteless-rows-leave-located-edges/pr-1from
pr-split/fix-2879-siteless-rows-leave-located-edges/pr-4
Open

vitali87 wants to merge 1 commit into
pr-split/fix-2879-siteless-rows-leave-located-edges/pr-1from
pr-split/fix-2879-siteless-rows-leave-located-edges/pr-4

Conversation

@vitali87

@vitali87 vitali87 commented Oct 31, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

Demo

No user-visible change: tests only. The behaviour they cover is shown in #3529.

Type of Change

  • Bug fix
  • New feature
  • Performance improvement
  • Refactoring (no functional changes)
  • Documentation
  • CI/CD or tooling
  • Dependencies

Related Issues

Part of #2879. Stacked on #3529.

Test Plan

  • Unit tests pass (make test-parallel or uv run pytest -n auto -m "not integration")
  • New tests added
  • Integration tests pass (make test-integration, requires Docker)
  • Manual testing (describe below)

Red on main: 5 of the file's tests failed. The located heuristic edge became exact, the site-less rows had no edge of their own, and the graph and index.bin disagreed on the issue's fixture. Green on #3529: 7 passed.

The tests:

  • test_a_row_without_a_site_leaves_a_located_edge_as_it_is (negative): the located edge keeps heuristic.
  • test_the_order_within_one_flush_does_not_matter: either order gives the same two edges.
  • test_rows_without_a_site_share_one_edge_per_pair (negative): rows within one flush and across flushes never make a second site-less edge, and later properties win.
  • test_the_flush_still_counts_rows_written: the summary still counts rows, and the failure log names a row whose endpoint is missing.
  • test_trace_confirmation_writes_its_observation_on_every_site: the confirm query on a real engine sets the observation on both sites, and a key passed as null keeps the edge's value.
  • test_the_graph_and_the_index_keep_the_same_calls: the issue's fixture gives the same CALLS edges through the graph and through index.bin.

Checklist

  • PR title follows Conventional Commits format
  • A breaking change has ! in the title and its release notes in changes/breaking/<PR number>.md (see Breaking changes)
  • All pre-commit checks pass (make pre-commit)
  • No hardcoded strings in non-config/non-constants files
  • No # type: ignore, cast(), Any, or object type hints
  • New comments and docstrings explain why, not what (see Comment Policy)

@greptile-apps

This comment has been minimized.

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Oct 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

🗂️ Base branches to auto review: 2
  • ^feat/.*
  • ^fix/.*

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

Run configuration

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

  • Trigger review
  • 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.

Share

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Oct 31, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ⚠️ Failed 2026-10-31T18:58:33.433792Z
We couldn’t complete this review. Comment @codex review to try again.
b8c9c57 PR opened
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@greptile-apps

greptile-apps Bot commented Oct 31, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

RetriggerView in GreptileConfidence Score: 5/5

[Low impact] The added tests appear safe to merge.

Summary

Adds tests that check site-less rows leave located call edges unchanged.

  • The test suite checks site-less calls stay separate from located calls.

Reviews (1) · Last reviewed commit: "Add codebase_rag/tests/test_siteless_rel..." · Reviewed by Greptile

@vitali87 vitali87 changed the title Add codebase_rag/tests/test_siteless_rel_rows.py test(graph): cover site-less relationship rows on the embedded engine Oct 31, 2026

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: No status

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant