Add repo access check tests

[pulltheflower]

What is this feature?

Add repo access check tests for repo component

Why do we need this feature?

[Add a description of the problem the feature is trying to solve.]

Who is this feature for?

[Add information on what kind of user the feature is for.]

Which issue(s) does this PR fix?:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

MR Summary:

The summary is added by @codegpt.

The MR introduces comprehensive tests for repository access permissions within the repo component. It adds tests to verify read, write, and admin access permissions for different scenarios, including personal repositories, organization repositories with various user roles (admin, reader, writer), and public/private repository access. Key updates include:

1. Implemented tests to check current user permissions for personal and organization repositories.
2. Added tests for allowing read, write, and admin access based on user roles and repository visibility.
3. Ensured proper handling of errors and edge cases, such as empty usernames or repository lookup failures.

[starship-github]

Linter Issue Report

During the code review, a list issues were found. These issues could affect the code quality, maintainability, and consistency. Below is the detailed Linter issue report:

component/repo_test.go

Lint Issue: undefined: ErrUserNotFound

• Location: Line 1853, Column 20
• Code Context:

  allow, _ := repoComp.AllowReadAccessRepo(ctx, &database.Repository{

• Suggestion: Ensure that the ErrUserNotFound variable or constant is defined within the appropriate scope. If it's meant to be a package-level error, define it in a package that's imported by this file. For example:

  var ErrUserNotFound = errors.New("user not found")

Lint Issue: undefined: ErrUserNotFound

• Location: Line 1878, Column 20
• Code Context:

  allow, _ := repoComp.AllowWriteAccess(ctx, types.ModelRepo, "namespace", "name", "")

• Suggestion: Check if the ErrUserNotFound error is correctly defined and imported into this file. If it's missing, you might need to define it or import the package where it's declared. Example definition:

  var ErrUserNotFound = errors.New("user not found")

Lint Issue: undefined: ErrUserNotFound

• Location: Line 1917, Column 20
• Code Context:

  allow, _ := repoComp.AllowAdminAccess(ctx, types.ModelRepo, "namespace", "name", "")

• Suggestion: Verify that ErrUserNotFound is correctly declared and accessible in this context. If it's intended to be a global error, ensure it's declared in a package that's accessible to this file. You might need to define it like so:

  var ErrUserNotFound = errors.New("user not found")

---

Please make the suggested changes to improve the code quality.

[starship-github]

Review Comments And Suggestions:

• component/repo_test.go

  • Comments:
    • The error handling for repoComp.AllowReadAccess, repoComp.AllowWriteAccess, and repoComp.AllowAdminAccess wraps the original error which might obscure the underlying issue. Consider logging the original error before wrapping.
  • Suggestions:

    log.Println("Original error:", err)
    require.Error(t, fmt.Errorf("failed to find repo, error: %w", err))
    

• component/repo_test.go

  • Comments:
    • Using require.NoError(t, err) directly after repoComp.CheckCurrentUserPermission calls might not be the best approach for all test cases. Consider scenarios where an error is expected.
  • Suggestions:

    if expectedError {
        require.Error(t, err)
    } else {
        require.NoError(t, err)
    }
    

• component/repo_test.go

  • Comments:
    • The test case "should return false if username is empty" in TestRepoComponent_AllowWriteAccess and TestRepoComponent_AllowAdminAccess might benefit from checking the specific error returned to ensure it's ErrUserNotFound.
  • Suggestions:

    require.True(t, errors.Is(err, ErrUserNotFound))
    

• component/repo_test.go

  • Comments:
    • The mock expectations for FindByPath and FindByUsername are repeated across multiple test cases. Consider refactoring to a common setup function to reduce duplication.
  • Suggestions:

    setupMocks(repoComp)
    

MR Evaluation:

This feature is still under test, evaluation are given by AI and might be inaccurate.

After evaluation, the code changes in the Merge Request get score: 100.

Tips

CodeReview Commands (invoked as MR or PR comments)

• @codegpt /review to trigger an code review.
• @codegpt /evaluate to trigger code evaluation process.
• @codegpt /describe to regenerate the summary of the MR.
• @codegpt /secscan to scan security vulnerabilities for the MR or the Repository.
• @codegpt /help to get help.

CodeReview Discussion Chat

There are 2 ways to chat with Starship CodeReview:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by StarShip.
  Example:
  • @codegpt How to fix this bug?
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab):
  Tag @codegpt in a new review comment at the desired location with your query.
  Examples:
  • @codegpt generate unit testing code for this code snippet.

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 MR/PR comments.

CodeReview Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation
  for detailed information on how to use Starship CodeReview.

About Us:

Visit the OpenCSG StarShip website for the Dashboard and detailed information on CodeReview, CodeGen, and other StarShip modules.