Implement continuous simulation loop #248
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,102 @@ | ||
| import { describe, it, expect, vi, beforeEach } from 'vitest'; | ||
| import { action, createStore } from 'easy-peasy'; | ||
| import type { SimulationModel, Simulation } from './simulation'; | ||
| import type { LammpsWeb } from '../types'; | ||
|
|
||
| describe('SimulationModel', () => { | ||
| describe('finished state', () => { | ||
| it('should initialize with finished as false', () => { | ||
| // Arrange | ||
| const store = createStore<Pick<SimulationModel, 'finished' | 'setFinished'>>({ | ||
| finished: false, | ||
| setFinished: action((state, value: boolean) => { | ||
| state.finished = value; | ||
| }), | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| // Act | ||
| const state = store.getState(); | ||
|
|
||
| // Assert | ||
| expect(state.finished).toBe(false); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should set finished state to true', () => { | ||
| // Arrange | ||
| const store = createStore<Pick<SimulationModel, 'finished' | 'setFinished'>>({ | ||
| finished: false, | ||
| setFinished: action((state, value: boolean) => { | ||
| state.finished = value; | ||
| }), | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| // Act | ||
| store.getActions().setFinished(true); | ||
|
|
||
| // Assert | ||
| expect(store.getState().finished).toBe(true); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should set finished state to false', () => { | ||
| // Arrange | ||
| const store = createStore<Pick<SimulationModel, 'finished' | 'setFinished'>>({ | ||
| finished: true, | ||
| setFinished: action((state, value: boolean) => { | ||
| state.finished = value; | ||
| }), | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| // Act | ||
| store.getActions().setFinished(false); | ||
|
|
||
| // Assert | ||
| expect(store.getState().finished).toBe(false); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it('should reset finished state on reset action', () => { | ||
| // Arrange | ||
| const store = createStore<Pick<SimulationModel, 'finished' | 'files' | 'lammps' | 'reset'>>({ | ||
| finished: true, | ||
| files: ['test.in'], | ||
| lammps: undefined, | ||
| reset: action((state) => { | ||
| state.files = []; | ||
| state.lammps = undefined; | ||
| state.finished = false; | ||
| }), | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| // Act | ||
| store.getActions().reset(undefined); | ||
|
|
||
| // Assert | ||
| expect(store.getState().finished).toBe(false); | ||
| expect(store.getState().files).toEqual([]); | ||
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| describe('continueSimulation types', () => { | ||
| it('should accept undefined timesteps parameter', () => { | ||
| // This test verifies that the type signature allows undefined | ||
| // The actual thunk implementation is tested through integration tests | ||
|
|
||
| // Arrange | ||
| type ContinueSimulationAction = (timesteps: number | undefined) => void; | ||
|
|
||
| // Act & Assert - This should compile without errors | ||
| const mockAction: ContinueSimulationAction = (timesteps) => { | ||
| if (timesteps === undefined) { | ||
| // Default behavior | ||
| } else { | ||
| // Custom timesteps | ||
| } | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| // Verify both call signatures work | ||
| mockAction(1000); | ||
| mockAction(undefined); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(mockAction).toBeDefined(); | ||
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
|
Comment on lines
+78
to
+101
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. This test case only verifies that the type signature of a mock action allows While type checking is useful, a unit test should ideally verify some logic. This test as it stands provides little value and could be misleading. I'd recommend either:
|
||
| }); | ||
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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These tests are not testing the actual implementation of the
setFinishedandresetactions fromsimulationModel. Instead, they re-implement the actions within thecreateStorecall for each test. This means you are testing a mock implementation, not your production code.To fix this, you should import the
simulationModeland use it to create the store for your tests. This will ensure you are testing the real actions.Here's an example of how you could restructure the tests: