Update replicator tests for new API #27

jayant-dhingra-cb · 2025-11-11T10:24:53Z

No description provided.

gemini-code-assist · 2025-11-11T10:25:07Z

Summary of Changes

Hello @jayant-dhingra-cb, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request significantly expands the end-to-end test coverage for the Replicator API by introducing a new test suite specifically designed for the CollectionConfiguration pattern. The added tests validate the API's behavior across numerous replication scenarios, ensuring its stability, correctness, and adherence to expected functionality, including advanced features like filtering, conflict resolution, and configuration management.

Highlights

New Replicator API Test Suite: Introduces ReplicatorNewApiTests with 25 new end-to-end tests for the updated Replicator API, which utilizes CollectionConfiguration objects.
Comprehensive Replication Scenarios: The new tests cover a wide range of replication functionalities, including default configuration values, status and document change listeners, empty push operations, and various filtering mechanisms (pull, push, nested objects, continuous).
Advanced Replication Behavior Validation: Specific tests validate checkpoint handling (with and without reset, continuous), document conflict resolution during pull, document deletion events, the "push and forget" pattern, and the performance of filtered replications.
API Robustness Checks: Includes tests to ensure the proper removal of change listeners, the immutability of ReplicatorConfiguration objects after creation, and the correct functioning of all configuration setter methods.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	`/gemini review`	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	`/gemini summary`	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	`/gemini help`	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

gemini-code-assist

Code Review

This pull request introduces a comprehensive test suite for the new replicator API, which is a great addition. The tests cover a wide range of scenarios, from basic configuration to complex conflict and filtering cases. My review focuses on improving the robustness of a test helper function, increasing type safety, and removing some dead code. Overall, this is a solid set of tests.

gemini-code-assist · 2025-11-11T10:29:48Z

cblite-tests/e2e/replicator-new-api-test.ts

+    let listenerToken: string;
+    const completionPromise = new Promise<void>((resolve, reject) => {
+      replicator
+        .addChangeListener((change) => {
+          const status = change.status;
+          const activityLevel = status.getActivityLevel();
+
+          if (
+            config.getContinuous() &&
+            activityLevel == ReplicatorActivityLevel.IDLE
+          ) {
+            if (
+              status.getProgress().getCompleted() ==
+              status.getProgress().getTotal()
+            )
+              replicator.stop();
+          }
+
+          if (activityLevel === ReplicatorActivityLevel.STOPPED) {
+            const error = status.getError();
+            if (error) {
+              reject(new Error(`Replication ${JSON.stringify(error)}`));
+            } else {
+              resolve();
+            }
+          }
+        })
+        .then((token) => {
+          listenerToken = token;
+        });
+    });


There are a couple of issues here that could lead to hanging tests or crashes. First, listenerToken is not initialized and could be undefined if addChangeListener fails. It should be typed as string | undefined for safety. Second, if the promise from addChangeListener rejects, it's an unhandled rejection, and completionPromise will hang, causing the test to time out. You should add a .catch(reject) to the promise chain to propagate the error.

let listenerToken: string | undefined; const completionPromise = new Promise<void>((resolve, reject) => { replicator .addChangeListener((change) => { const status = change.status; const activityLevel = status.getActivityLevel(); if ( config.getContinuous() && activityLevel == ReplicatorActivityLevel.IDLE ) { if ( status.getProgress().getCompleted() == status.getProgress().getTotal() ) replicator.stop(); } if (activityLevel === ReplicatorActivityLevel.STOPPED) { const error = status.getError(); if (error) { reject(new Error(`Replication ${JSON.stringify(error)}`)); } else { resolve(); } } }) .then((token) => { listenerToken = token; }) .catch(reject); });

I don't know enough about Promises to know if either this would be an actual issue only inside the test or if this is standard practice and we should accommodate such use ?better?. In theory we don't expect users to remove a listener right after they create it as the expectation is that they are looking to receive at least an update before they would dispose it and so the above is redundant.

gemini-code-assist · 2025-11-11T10:29:48Z

cblite-tests/e2e/replicator-new-api-test.ts

+      await replicator.removeChangeListener(listenerToken);
+      replicator.stop();


Since listenerToken can be undefined (as it's set asynchronously and the operation might fail), you should add a guard to prevent calling removeChangeListener with an invalid token. This will prevent a crash in the finally block.

if (listenerToken) { await replicator.removeChangeListener(listenerToken); } replicator.stop();

gemini-code-assist · 2025-11-11T10:29:49Z

cblite-tests/e2e/replicator-new-api-test.ts

+      if (!(otherDb instanceof Database)) {
+        return {
+          testName: 'testDocumentReplicationEventWithPullConflict',
+          success: false,
+          message: "otherDb isn't a database instance",
+          data: undefined,
+        };
+      }


This if (!(otherDb instanceof Database)) check is unreachable. The new Database(...) constructor on line 669 will either return a Database instance or throw an error. In the success case, otherDb is guaranteed to be an instance of Database, so this condition will never be true. This block can be safely removed.

I'm curious about this check? as pointed out by the bot, I expect that new Database... call above to throw at a low level iOS/LiteCore in case the database cannot be opened. Including creating a new one if it doesn't already exists in "open". Is that not the case for RN?

We should never end up into this if basically.

gemini-code-assist · 2025-11-11T10:29:49Z

cblite-tests/e2e/replicator-new-api-test.ts

+      const replicatedDocuments: any = [];
+
+      const token = await replicator.addDocumentChangeListener((change: any) => {
+        change.documents.forEach((document: any) =>
+          replicatedDocuments.push(document)
+        );
+      });


Using any for replicatedDocuments, change, and document reduces type safety. You should use the specific types from cblite-js like ReplicatedDocument and DocumentReplication. You'll need to import these types to use them in the suggestion.

const replicatedDocuments: ReplicatedDocument[] = []; const token = await replicator.addDocumentChangeListener((change: DocumentReplication) => { change.documents.forEach((document) => replicatedDocuments.push(document) ); });

velicuvlad · 2025-11-11T18:43:25Z

cblite-tests/e2e/replicator-test.ts

      if (!this.otherDatabase) {
        const databaseResult = await this.getDatabase(
-          this.otherDatabaseName,
+          this.otherDatabaseName, 


extra space

velicuvlad · 2025-11-11T18:46:23Z

cblite-tests/e2e/replicator-new-api-test.ts

+    } catch (e) {
+      console.error(e);
+    } finally {
+      await replicator.removeChangeListener(listenerToken);


Ideally we would want to have listenerToken.remove() here as discussed in zoom.

velicuvlad · 2025-11-11T18:46:31Z

cblite-tests/e2e/replicator-new-api-test.ts

+    } catch (e) {
+      console.error(e);
+    } finally {
+      await replicator.removeChangeListener(listenerToken);


Ideally we would want to have listenerToken.remove() here as discussed in zoom.

velicuvlad · 2025-11-11T18:46:56Z

cblite-tests/e2e/replicator-new-api-test.ts

+      await this.sleep(500);
+
+      // Clean up
+      await replicator.removeChangeListener(token);


velicuvlad · 2025-11-11T18:47:06Z

cblite-tests/e2e/replicator-new-api-test.ts

+      await this.sleep(500);
+
+      // Clean up
+      await replicator.removeChangeListener(token);


velicuvlad · 2025-11-11T18:47:21Z

cblite-tests/e2e/replicator-new-api-test.ts

+
+      await replicator.start(false);
+      await replicatorCompletionPromise;
+      await replicator.removeChangeListener(listenerToken);


same here etc.

velicuvlad · 2025-11-11T18:51:32Z

cblite-tests/e2e/replicator-new-api-test.ts

+    let listenerToken: string;
+    const completionPromise = new Promise<void>((resolve, reject) => {
+      replicator
+        .addChangeListener((change) => {
+          const status = change.status;
+          const activityLevel = status.getActivityLevel();
+
+          if (
+            config.getContinuous() &&
+            activityLevel == ReplicatorActivityLevel.IDLE
+          ) {
+            if (
+              status.getProgress().getCompleted() ==
+              status.getProgress().getTotal()
+            )
+              replicator.stop();
+          }
+
+          if (activityLevel === ReplicatorActivityLevel.STOPPED) {
+            const error = status.getError();
+            if (error) {
+              reject(new Error(`Replication ${JSON.stringify(error)}`));
+            } else {
+              resolve();
+            }
+          }
+        })
+        .then((token) => {
+          listenerToken = token;
+        });
+    });


I don't know enough about Promises to know if either this would be an actual issue only inside the test or if this is standard practice and we should accommodate such use ?better?. In theory we don't expect users to remove a listener right after they create it as the expectation is that they are looking to receive at least an update before they would dispose it and so the above is redundant.

velicuvlad · 2025-11-11T19:00:48Z

cblite-tests/e2e/replicator-new-api-test.ts

+      if (!(otherDb instanceof Database)) {
+        return {
+          testName: 'testDocumentReplicationEventWithPullConflict',
+          success: false,
+          message: "otherDb isn't a database instance",
+          data: undefined,
+        };
+      }


I'm curious about this check? as pointed out by the bot, I expect that new Database... call above to throw at a low level iOS/LiteCore in case the database cannot be opened. Including creating a new one if it doesn't already exists in "open". Is that not the case for RN?

We should never end up into this if basically.

velicuvlad · 2025-11-11T19:11:42Z

If time permits, we should list/inventory this tests somewhere in a readme or similar. See https://github.com/couchbaselabs/couchbase-lite-api/tree/master/spec/tests for examples

Update replicator tests for new API

aebbb37

gemini-code-assist bot reviewed Nov 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

velicuvlad approved these changes Nov 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

		await replicator.removeChangeListener(listenerToken);
		replicator.stop();

Update replicator tests for new API #27

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Update replicator tests for new API #27

Conversation

jayant-dhingra-cb commented Nov 11, 2025

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot commented Nov 11, 2025

Summary of Changes

Highlights

Footnotes

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Code Review

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Nov 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Nov 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Nov 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

velicuvlad Nov 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gemini-code-assist bot Nov 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

velicuvlad Nov 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

velicuvlad commented Nov 11, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

velicuvlad Nov 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

velicuvlad Nov 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading