Skip to content

Conversation

@yu-iskw
Copy link
Contributor

@yu-iskw yu-iskw commented Jan 12, 2026

User description

Solves #2084


PR Type

Bug fix


Description

  • Make severity field optional with default None value

  • Fixes issue where severity was required but could be missing


Diagram Walkthrough

flowchart LR
  A["TestResultDBRowSchema"] -- "severity field" --> B["Required str"]
  B -- "changed to" --> C["Optional[str] = None"]
Loading

File Walkthrough

Relevant files
Bug fix
schema.py
Make severity field optional with default                               

elementary/monitor/fetchers/tests/schema.py

  • Changed severity field from required str to Optional[str] with default
    value None
  • Allows test result records to have missing severity values without
    validation errors
+1/-1     

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Bug Fixes
    • Improved test result handling to support scenarios where severity information is unavailable, increasing flexibility in test monitoring workflows.

✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.

@coderabbitai
Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 12, 2026

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The TestResultDBRowSchema class's severity field has been updated to accept optional values with a default of None, changing it from a required string field to an optional string field.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Schema Field Nullability Update
elementary/monitor/fetchers/tests/schema.py
Modified severity field in TestResultDBRowSchema from required string to optional string with default value of None

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Poem

🐰 A field once rigid, stern and true,
Now bends with grace—optional too!
Severity may vanish with a wink,
Defaults to None, in a flash of link.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1
❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)
Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Title check ❓ Inconclusive The title 'Update schema.py' is vague and generic, using non-descriptive language that doesn't convey the meaningful change of making the severity field optional. Use a more specific title that captures the main change, such as 'Make TestResultDBRowSchema severity field optional' or 'Allow severity field to be optional in test result schema.'
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing touches
  • 📝 Generate docstrings

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Disabled knowledge base sources:

  • Linear integration is disabled by default for public repositories

You can enable these sources in your CodeRabbit configuration.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5cdc1dd and 26a2294.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • elementary/monitor/fetchers/tests/schema.py
🔇 Additional comments (1)
elementary/monitor/fetchers/tests/schema.py (1)

45-45: LGTM! The change correctly makes severity optional.

The implementation follows the established pattern used for other optional fields in this schema (e.g., invocation_id, test_execution_id, model_unique_id). The Optional type is already imported on line 1, so no additional changes are needed.


Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

👋 @yu-iskw
Thank you for raising your pull request.
Please make sure to add tests and document all user-facing changes.
You can do this by editing the docs files in this pull request.

@yu-iskw yu-iskw deployed to elementary_test_env January 12, 2026 22:46 — with GitHub Actions Active
@yu-iskw yu-iskw marked this pull request as ready for review January 12, 2026 22:50
@arbiv
Copy link
Contributor

arbiv commented Jan 13, 2026

@MikaKerman can you check if this has other effects on the system?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants