Improve error message and add tests for invalid argument or return type

[jackalcooper]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Enhanced error handling for invalid argument and return types in the defm macro, improving robustness.

• Bug Fixes

  • Added validation checks to prevent runtime errors related to type mismatches.

• Tests

  • Introduced new test cases to validate error handling for invalid types in defm macro usage.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The Charms.Defm.Expander module has been significantly updated, particularly in the expand_macro function, which now includes validation checks for argument and return types to ensure they are valid MLIR types. An ArgumentError is raised for any invalid types. Additionally, two new test cases have been added to the DefmTest module to verify that appropriate errors are raised when invalid types are specified in the defm macro.

Changes

File	Change Summary
lib/charms/defm/expander.ex	Updated expand_macro function to include validation checks for argument and return types; raised ArgumentError for invalid types; minor formatting and comment adjustments.
test/defm_test.exs	Added two test cases in DefmTest to validate error handling for invalid return and argument types in defm macro usage.

Possibly related PRs

• Add tests for macro expansion in defm #24: The test cases added in this PR validate error handling for invalid return and argument types in the defm macro, which is directly related to the changes made in the expand_macro function of the main PR.
• Update state.remotes when expanding calls #26: This PR modifies the Charms.Defm.Expander module, including updates to the expand_macro function, which is relevant to the changes made in the main PR regarding validation checks in the same function.

🐇 In the land of code where rabbits play,
Type checks now guard the macros each day.
With errors caught, no more will we fret,
In the world of MLIR, our types are all set!
Hops of joy for tests that now shine,
Validations in place, our code's truly fine! 🐇

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between a2138cd and f1afff0.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• lib/charms/defm/expander.ex (1 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• lib/charms/defm/expander.ex

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 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.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)

test/defm_test.exs (1)

4-14: LGTM! Consider adding a comment for clarity.

The test case effectively validates the error handling for an invalid return type in the defm macro. It aligns well with the PR objective.

Consider adding a brief comment explaining why Term.t() is an invalid return type in this context. This would enhance the test's readability and make it easier for other developers to understand the purpose of this test case.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

📥 Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between ebc639d and a2138cd.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• lib/charms/defm/expander.ex (1 hunks)
• test/defm_test.exs (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🔇 Additional comments (4)

test/defm_test.exs (2)

1-28: Great job improving test coverage!

The addition of these new test cases significantly enhances the robustness of the defm macro testing. By covering both invalid return types and invalid argument types, you've addressed important edge cases that align perfectly with the PR objectives.

These new tests, combined with the existing functionality tests, provide a well-rounded suite that covers both happy paths and error scenarios. This improvement in test coverage will help maintain the reliability of the Charms library as it evolves.

---

16-27: LGTM! Please clarify why Pointer.t() is invalid.

The test case effectively validates the error handling for an invalid argument type in the defm macro, aligning well with the PR objective.

Could you please clarify why Pointer.t() is considered an invalid argument type in this context? This information would be valuable for understanding the test case and the underlying implementation. Consider adding a comment to explain this, or if it's related to the Charms library implementation, you might want to verify it:

lib/charms/defm/expander.ex (2)

796-798: Type validation for argument types is properly implemented

The added check ensures that all argument types are instances of MLIR.Type, enhancing robustness by catching invalid argument types early in the macro expansion process.

---

800-802: Type validation for return types is properly implemented

This validation confirms that all return types are valid MLIR.Type instances, which improves error handling and prevents potential issues with invalid return types during macro expansion.