Walkthrough

The recent update enhances the ShellHubDevice class in device.py by transitioning temporal data attributes to datetime objects, boosting precision and manageability of timestamps.

Changes

Assessment against linked issues

🐇✨
Changes in the code, oh how they flow,
Time now dances, in precision we glow.
From strings to dates, a leap so bold,
In datetime's embrace, our moments unfold.
🕰️🌟

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Hello @swapnil-veer! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻

Comment last updated at 2024-02-09 09:56:59 UTC

Are that's all with this issue?

No ! As you can see, the tests aren't passing so you'll need to fix that, as well as add some tests. There is also the review from coderabbit you need to implement

@swapnil-veer Don't hesitate to let me know if you are lost and tell me where you are lost I'll be happy to guide you. Otherwise I can always edit the PR myself.

@Seluj78
I just stuck at the test
How to resolve that where my code is breaking at the tests
Can you please guide me

@swapnil-veer Before fixing the tests, look at the comments @coderabbitai made on your code and implement them (Checking if the value passed is a correct ISO datetime string.)

Once you have done that, you can easily fix the tests (They are failing because they aren't an ISO format, so maybe fromisoformat is incorrect)

@Seluj78 To ensure that the values passed are correct ISO datetime strings, you can use datetime.fromisoformat within a try-except block to catch any ValueError exceptions that occur when the string is not in the correct ISO format. Here's a snippet to illustrate this approach:

from datetime import datetime

def convert_iso_datetime(iso_string):
    try:
        return datetime.fromisoformat(iso_string)
    except ValueError:
        # Handle the error, e.g., by logging or raising a custom exception
        print(f"Invalid ISO datetime string: {iso_string}")
        return None

This method will attempt to convert the string to a datetime object using the ISO format. If the string is not in the correct format, it will catch the ValueError and allow you to handle the error appropriately, such as logging the issue or raising a custom exception. Implementing this validation should help address the issue with the failing tests, assuming they fail due to incorrect datetime string formats.

@coderabbitai
I guess datetime.fromisoformat has been already checking is string in the iso format or not

@swapnil-veer You're correct that datetime.fromisoformat inherently checks if the string is in ISO format and raises a ValueError if it's not. The suggestion to use a try-except block is to ensure your code can gracefully handle such errors, allowing for more controlled error management, such as logging the issue or providing a fallback mechanism, rather than letting the exception terminate the program unexpectedly. This approach is particularly useful in maintaining robustness and reliability in your application, especially when dealing with external inputs that might not always conform to expected formats.

I think first of all, you need to make sure that the data passed from shellhub is indeed a ISO format, otherwise this won't work at all

@swapnil-veer You're correct that datetime.fromisoformat inherently checks if the string is in ISO 8601 format and raises a ValueError if it's not. The purpose of using a try-except block, as suggested, is not to perform a pre-check but to gracefully handle the situation where the string is not in the correct format. This approach allows for custom error handling, such as logging the error or providing a fallback mechanism, ensuring that your application can respond appropriately without crashing. It's a best practice for robust error handling in scenarios where the input format might vary or be incorrect.

Hello @Seluj78
Sorry I am unable to understand how to pass the tests of coderabbit
Can you please do it?

@swapnil-veer Done :)

Now as you can see the tests fail on Python 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 which means something has changed on the datetime parsing since 3.11 and 3.12 are working.

see https://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/163ugsm/psa_as_of_python_311_datetimefromisoformat/

@swapnil-veer would you like to try and add a fix for this ?

I think not getting close to solution
How you run that multiple test with multiple versions, I am sure that is for our app must be useful from any versions
Can we simulate that test in local
Actually I would like to see your solution !
From my point of we have to ensure that string must be in Iso format nut how we can check it

@Seluj78
For my curiousity
Why we are not using django rest framework in this project
That will help us in various ways
That will connect models with database

@Seluj78 For my curiousity Why we are not using django rest framework in this project That will help us in various ways That will connect models with database

Yes, why do we not? It would be very powerful! @Seluj78

From my point of we have to ensure that string must be in Iso format nut how we can check it

I've already implemented that in the code, I've pushed on the branch

How you run that multiple test with multiple versions, I am sure that is for our app must be useful from any versions

This already exists thanks to tox. I recommend you look up on how to use it

Why we are not using django rest framework in this project

Because this is an SDK that connects to an external API made by the @shellhub-io team (https://shellhub.io) so we don't need to connect to their database, just interact with their API

@swapnil-veer I will take over this PR and fix the last bugs, you'll be able to see in the commits how I did it :)

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (41e0ef6) 81.27% compared to head (530f211) 82.18%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #10      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   81.27%   82.18%   +0.90%     
==========================================
  Files           4        4              
  Lines         235      247      +12     
  Branches       28       30       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits          191      203      +12     
  Misses         36       36              
  Partials        8        8              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.