[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Fix the unit test bug for #1051d, same as normalize_address_regress. #784

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Fix the unit test bug for #1051d, same as normalize_address_regress. #784

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

w345731923
Copy link
Contributor

All 3 tests passed.

@coderabbitai coderabbitai
Copy link
coderabbitai bot commented Nov 26, 2024
📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The changes involve modifications to address normalization data within the pagc_normalize_address_regress file. Key updates include correcting the formatting of address entries, specifically adjusting the placement of directional indicators and postal codes. New address entries have also been added, showcasing variations in existing addresses, particularly concerning street types and suite numbers. These adjustments aim to enhance the accuracy and structure of address data representation.

Changes

File Path Change Summary
extras/tiger_geocoder/regress/pagc_normalize_address_regress Corrected formatting of address entries, including the separation of directional indicators and postal codes. Added new address entries with variations in street types and suite numbers.

Poem

In the land of addresses, neat and bright,
A rabbit hops with joy, oh what a sight!
With numbers and streets all in their place,
Each entry now shines with a proper grace.
Hooray for the changes, let’s dance and cheer,
For every correct address brings us near! 🐇✨

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 78f1646 and 1fb7cd1.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • extras/tiger_geocoder/regress/pagc_normalize_address_regress (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
extras/tiger_geocoder/regress/pagc_normalize_address_regress (3)

Line range hint 6-15: Good test coverage with comprehensive address variations.

The test cases (#1051a-d, #1073a-b) provide good coverage of different address formats, including variations with:

  • Suite numbers
  • Different street numbers
  • Different directional indicators
  • Different postal codes

6-6: LGTM! The fix correctly normalizes the address format.

The change properly separates the directional indicator 'N' into its dedicated field and ensures the postal code is correctly formatted, fixing the issue mentioned in #1051d.

Let's verify the consistency of this format with other similar test cases:

✅ Verification successful

The address format is correctly normalized and consistent with other test cases

The verification shows that:

  • The format in #1051d matches the pattern used in similar test cases (#1051a, #1051b, #1051c, #1073a, #1073b)
  • Directional indicators (N, S, E, W) are consistently placed in their dedicated field
  • The format aligns with other Minneapolis addresses in the test suite
  • No instances of incorrectly formatted directional indicators (like being part of postal codes) were found
🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for consistent formatting of addresses with directional indicators
# and postal codes in the test file

# Look for any potential inconsistencies in directional indicator placement
rg -A 1 '\|[NEWS]\|[^|]+\|[^|]+\|[^|]+\|[^|]+\|[^|]+\|[0-9]{5}\|' extras/tiger_geocoder/regress/pagc_normalize_address_regress

# Look for any postal codes with directional prefixes
rg -A 1 '\|[NEWS] [0-9]{5}\|' extras/tiger_geocoder/regress/pagc_normalize_address_regress

Length of output: 221

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to verify the address format consistency
# First, let's look at the specific test case and surrounding context
rg -B 2 -A 2 "#1051d" extras/tiger_geocoder/regress/pagc_normalize_address_regress

# Then, let's look for any similar patterns with directional indicators
# Using a more relaxed pattern to catch potential variations
rg "\|[NEWS]\||[NEWS] " extras/tiger_geocoder/regress/pagc_normalize_address_regress

Length of output: 1908

Line range hint 8-12: Verify the intention behind duplicate test cases.

There are multiple identical entries for "529 MAIN ST" in Boston. Please confirm if these duplicates are intentional for testing deduplication logic.

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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@strk
Copy link
Member
strk commented Nov 28, 2024

Is there a trac ticket observing the bug being fixed here ?
Please file one if not already existing, and reference from here.

https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis

@strk
Copy link
Member
strk commented Nov 28, 2024

I guess this might refer to https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/1051 which is marked as already fixed 13 years ago ?
@robe2 idea why no bot is catching this ?

@strk
Copy link
Member
strk commented Nov 28, 2024

I've filed https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/5813 for the missing catch by bots

@w345731923
Copy link
Contributor Author

我想这可能指的是 13 年前被标记为已经修复的 https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/1051？ 知道为什么没有机器人捕获这个吗？

The CI likely doesn't validate postgis_tiger_geocoder and address_standardizer.

@strk
Copy link
Member
strk commented Nov 29, 2024

Thanks, merged as 64239b7

@strk strk closed this Nov 29, 2024
RekGRpth pushed a commit to RekGRpth/postgis that referenced this pull request Nov 29, 2024
@w345731923 @strk
Fix the unit test
64239b7 
References #1051, same as normalize_address_regress.
All 3 tests passed.

Origin: postgisGH-784
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@w345731923 @strk