refactor: centralized tasks manager #13223
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
📝 Walkthrough""" WalkthroughThe changes refactor the Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~7 minutes Assessment against linked issues
Assessment against linked issues: Out-of-scope changesNo out-of-scope changes found. Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Note ⚡️ Unit Test Generation is now available in beta!Learn more here, or try it out under "Finishing Touches" below. 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
⏰ 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). (11)
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests
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. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. 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
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
1 task
c827ea5 to
5e7701e
Compare
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
This was referenced Jul 29, 2025
5e7701e to
545cf54
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @gastoner - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:
- Consider extracting the repetitive TaskManager instantiation in the tests into a helper/factory to reduce boilerplate and improve readability.
- Since you changed the
tasks.Managerschema to typeobjectwithout a default, you may want to explicitly define a default value or add handling forundefinedto prevent unexpected behavior.
Prompt for AI Agents
Please address the comments from this code review:
## Overall Comments
- Consider extracting the repetitive TaskManager instantiation in the tests into a helper/factory to reduce boilerplate and improve readability.
- Since you changed the `tasks.Manager` schema to type `object` without a default, you may want to explicitly define a default value or add handling for `u
8000
ndefined` to prevent unexpected behavior.
## Individual Comments
### Comment 1
<location> `packages/main/src/plugin/tasks/task-manager.spec.ts:61` </location>
<code_context>
test('task manager init should register a configuration option', async () => {
- const taskManager = new TaskManager(apiSender, statusBarRegistry, commandRegistry, configurationRegistry);
+ const taskManager = new TaskManager(
+ apiSender,
+ statusBarRegistry,
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
Consider introducing a factory function or shared setup to avoid repeating the five-argument TaskManager construction in every test.
Consider pulling the new fifth argument out into a small factory (or reusing a shared `taskManager` via `beforeEach`) so you don’t have to repeat all five params in every test. For example:
```ts
// near the top of the file
const experimentalConfigurationManager = {/* …your mock… */};
function createTaskManager() {
return new TaskManager(
apiSender,
statusBarRegistry,
commandRegistry,
configurationRegistry,
experimentalConfigurationManager,
);
}
```
Then your tests shrink from:
```ts
const taskManager = new TaskManager(
apiSender,
statusBarRegistry,
commandRegistry,
configurationRegistry,
experimentalConfigurationManager,
);
```
to:
```ts
const taskManager = createTaskManager();
```
—or even—
```ts
let taskManager: TaskManager;
beforeEach(() => {
taskManager = createTaskManager();
vi.resetAllMocks();
});
test('create task with title', () => {
const task = taskManager.createTask({ title: 'title' });
// …
});
```
This preserves all behavior while removing the boilerplate of passing that fifth parameter everywhere.
</issue_to_address>Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
|
|
||
| test('task manager init should register a configuration option', async () => { | ||
| const taskManager = new TaskManager(apiSender, statusBarRegistry, commandRegistry, configurationRegistry); | ||
| const taskManager = new TaskManager( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
issue (complexity): Consider introducing a factory function or shared setup to avoid repeating the five-argument TaskManager construction in every test.
Consider pulling the new fifth argument out into a small factory (or reusing a shared taskManager via beforeEach) so you don’t have to repeat all five params in every test. For example:
// near the top of the file
const experimentalConfigurationManager = {/* …your mock… */};
function createTaskManager() {
return new TaskManager(
apiSender,
statusBarRegistry,
commandRegistry,
configurationRegistry,
experimentalConfigurationManager,
);
}Then your tests shrink from:
const taskManager = new TaskManager(
apiSender,
statusBarRegistry,
commandRegistry,
configurationRegistry,
experimentalConfigurationManager,
);to:
const taskManager = createTaskManager();—or even—
let taskManager: TaskManager;
beforeEach(() => {
taskManager = createTaskManager();
vi.resetAllMocks();
});
test('create task with title', () => {
const task = taskManager.createTask({ title: 'title' });
// …
});This preserves all behavior while removing the boilerplate of passing that fifth parameter everywhere.
MarsKubeX
reviewed
Jul 30, 2025
|
|
||
| test('task dispose should send `task-removed` message', async () => { | ||
| const taskManager = new TaskManager(apiSender, statusBarRegistry, commandRegistry, configurationRegistry); | ||
| const taskManager = new TaskManager( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've seen that this const is used in several test. Could it be possible to move outside tests, for example in the describe block?
feloy
reviewed
Jul 30, 2025
|
|
||
| test('Ensure statusbar registry', async () => { | ||
| const taskManager = new TaskManager(apiSender, statusBarRegistry, commandRegistry, configurationRegistry); | ||
| const taskManager = new TaskManager( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you forget to remove this one to use the one in beforeEach instead?
c0bc225 to
378f335
Compare
feloy
approved these changes
Jul 30, 2025
|
Needs rebase after #13227 |
Signed-off-by: Evzen Gasta <evzen.ml@seznam.cz>
Signed-off-by: Evzen Gasta <evzen.ml@seznam.c 9E81 z>
378f335 to
c48de1f
Compare
This was referenced Aug 13, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR do?
Changes logic from storing boolean value to object/undefined for experimental features, uses new experimental configuration manager #13316
More info in #13095
Screenshot / video of UI
What issues does this PR fix or reference?
Closes #13201
Needs rebase after #13227 is merged
THOSE PRs MUST be merged together:
#13225
#13224
#13223
#13226
#13227
How to test this PR?