Fix bug with nested object template range expansion #625

minitriga · 2025-11-12T16:47:44Z

Fixes: #624

Summary by CodeRabbit

Bug Fixes
- Fixed nested object template range expansion so per-item embedded parameters are respected when creating related objects, ensuring parameter overrides apply correctly and validation/expansion behave consistently.
Tests
- Added tests for parameter handling in nested objects: top-level, missing, empty, and invalid (non-dictionary) parameter cases to prevent regressions.

…ge expansion

coderabbitai · 2025-11-12T16:48:04Z

Walkthrough

The change forwards the object's parameters when creating nodes (parameters=self.parameters) and, for related-object creation paths, sources per-item parameters from the related entry (InfrahubObjectParameters(**value["parameters"]) or None) instead of reusing the parent's parameters. Tests add fixtures and cases covering missing, empty, and non-dict parameters, asserting that empty/missing parameters produce an expand_range attribute while non-dict parameters raise ValidationError.

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run `@coderabbitai generate docstrings` to improve docstring coverage.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and specifically describes the main change: fixing a bug with nested object template range expansion, which directly matches the core issue being addressed.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The PR implements the required fix for nested object range expansion by modifying parameter handling in infrahub_sdk/spec/object.py to use per-relationship parameter sourcing from embedded data.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes are directly related to fixing the nested object template range expansion issue: modifications to parameter handling, a changelog entry, and comprehensive test coverage.

✨ Finishing touches

📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests
Post copyable unit tests in a comment
Commit unit tests in branch atg-20251112-624

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between e48d4f9 and 7ead841.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

infrahub_sdk/spec/object.py (3 hunks)

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

infrahub_sdk/spec/object.py

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (8)

GitHub Check: unit-tests (3.13)
GitHub Check: unit-tests (3.11)
GitHub Check: unit-tests (3.12)
GitHub Check: unit-tests (3.9)
GitHub Check: integration-tests-latest-infrahub
GitHub Check: unit-tests (3.10)
GitHub Check: documentation
GitHub Check: Cloudflare Pages

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.}

cloudflare-workers-and-pages · 2025-11-12T16:48:25Z

Deploying infrahub-sdk-python with Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit:	`7ead841`
Status:	✅ Deploy successful!
Preview URL:	https://30b1c1bf.infrahub-sdk-python.pages.dev
Branch Preview URL:	https://atg-20251112-624.infrahub-sdk-python.pages.dev

View logs

codecov · 2025-11-12T16:50:14Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           stable     #625   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   75.46%   75.46%           
=======================================
  Files         113      113           
  Lines        9512     9512           
  Branches     1893     1893           
=======================================
  Hits         7178     7178           
+ Misses       1834     1833    -1     
- Partials      500      501    +1

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration-tests	`34.90% <ø> (ø)`
python-3.10	`48.76% <ø> (+0.02%)`	⬆️
python-3.11	`48.76% <ø> (ø)`
python-3.12	`48.74% <ø> (ø)`
python-3.13	`48.74% <ø> (ø)`
python-3.9	`47.46% <ø> (ø)`
python-filler-3.12	`24.29% <ø> (ø)`

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
infrahub_sdk/spec/object.py	`84.79% <ø> (+0.67%)`	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 709cbd2 and 1c0b643.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

changelog/624.fixed.md (1 hunks)
infrahub_sdk/spec/object.py (2 hunks)
tests/unit/sdk/spec/test_object.py (2 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (3)

**/*.py

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (CLAUDE.md)

When implementing Infrahub checks, subclass InfrahubCheck and override validate(data); do not implement or rely on a check() method

Files:

infrahub_sdk/spec/object.py
tests/unit/sdk/spec/test_object.py

tests/unit/**/*.py

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (CLAUDE.md)

Place and write unit tests under tests/unit/ (isolated component tests)

Files:

tests/unit/sdk/spec/test_object.py

tests/**/*.py

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (CLAUDE.md)

Use the custom pytest plugin (infrahub_sdk.pytest_plugin) fixtures for clients, configuration, and Infrahub-specific testing

Files:

tests/unit/sdk/spec/test_object.py

🧬 Code graph analysis (2)

infrahub_sdk/spec/object.py (1)

infrahub_sdk/spec/models.py (1)

InfrahubObjectParameters (6-7)

tests/unit/sdk/spec/test_object.py (3)

tests/unit/sdk/conftest.py (2)

client_with_schema_01 (1886-1888)

client (32-33)

infrahub_sdk/spec/object.py (4)

ObjectFile (634-662)

validate_format (179-198)

validate_format (655-659)

spec (638-644)

infrahub_sdk/exceptions.py (1)

ValidationError (117-129)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (7)

GitHub Check: integration-tests-latest-infrahub
GitHub Check: unit-tests (3.13)
GitHub Check: unit-tests (3.12)
GitHub Check: unit-tests (3.11)
GitHub Check: unit-tests (3.9)
GitHub Check: unit-tests (3.10)
GitHub Check: Cloudflare Pages

🔇 Additional comments (4)

changelog/624.fixed.md (1)

1-1: LGTM!

The changelog entry accurately documents the fix for nested object template range expansion.

infrahub_sdk/spec/object.py (1)

212-212: LGTM!

Correctly passes parameters to ensure top-level parameters flow through to node creation.

tests/unit/sdk/spec/test_object.py (2)

103-118: Good edge case coverage for parameter validation.

These fixtures properly test boundary conditions for parameter handling (non-dict and empty dict cases).

244-265: The review comment references a non-existent issue and unverified feature scope.

Issue #624 does not appear anywhere in the codebase—no references in code, tests, documentation, or changelogs. The suggestion to add nested relationship parameter inheritance tests is based on this phantom issue and lacks evidence that the feature is implemented or required. While parameters are passed through the validation chain and top-level expansion works, there is no code evidence that parameters propagate to nested relationships or that this behavior is currently tested. The existing four parameter tests only verify parameter accessibility, not nested inheritance.

If nested relationship parameter handling is genuinely needed, it should be tracked in a documented issue before test coverage is added. Otherwise, this represents speculative feature development without clear requirements.

Likely an incorrect or invalid review comment.

infrahub_sdk/spec/object.py

ajtmccarty · 2025-11-12T19:24:54Z

infrahub_sdk/spec/object.py

                branch=branch,
                default_schema_kind=default_schema_kind,
-                parameters=parameters,
+                parameters=InfrahubObjectParameters(**data[rel].get("parameters")) if "parameters" in data[rel] else None,


should the None be parameters here? I'm not sure how parameters passed into create_node are expected to behave in combination with parameters defined inside of data

If none is passed to the function it will create a new instance of InfrahubObjectParameters with parameters = parameters or InfrahubObjectParameters()

ajtmccarty · 2025-11-12T19:25:45Z

infrahub_sdk/spec/object.py

                branch=branch,
                default_schema_kind=default_schema_kind,
-                parameters=parameters,
+                parameters=InfrahubObjectParameters(**data[rel].get("parameters")) if "parameters" in data[rel] else None,


should the other calls to create_related_nodes in this method do something similar with overriding parameters?

You're correct. There is one other instance where range expansion is possible. I have added that but in the case where RelationshipDataFormat.ONE_OBJ is the relation there is no need for parameters as you cant expand into a cardinality of ONE.

…r initialization of InfrahubObjectParameters

Add tests for parameter validation and fix nested object template ran…

1c0b643

…ge expansion

coderabbitai bot reviewed Nov 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

infrahub_sdk/spec/object.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Handle missing parameters in InfrahubObjectParameters initialization

e48d4f9

dgarros approved these changes Nov 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

ajtmccarty reviewed Nov 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

Refactor parameter handling in InfrahubObjectFileData to ensure prope…

7ead841

…r initialization of InfrahubObjectParameters

minitriga merged commit d66807f into stable Nov 13, 2025
20 checks passed

minitriga deleted the atg-20251112-624 branch November 13, 2025 10:12

infrahub-github-bot-app bot mentioned this pull request Nov 13, 2025

Merge stable into develop #626

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Fix bug with nested object template range expansion #625

Fix bug with nested object template range expansion #625

Uh oh!

minitriga commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

cloudflare-workers-and-pages bot commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ajtmccarty Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

minitriga Nov 13, 2025

Uh oh!

ajtmccarty Nov 12, 2025

Uh oh!

minitriga Nov 13, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Fix bug with nested object template range expansion #625

Fix bug with nested object template range expansion #625

Uh oh!

Conversation

minitriga commented Nov 12, 2025 • edited by coderabbitai bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary by CodeRabbit

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

Uh oh!

cloudflare-workers-and-pages bot commented Nov 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Deploying infrahub-sdk-python with Cloudflare Pages

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Nov 12, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ajtmccarty Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

minitriga Nov 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ajtmccarty Nov 12, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

minitriga Nov 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

minitriga commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

cloudflare-workers-and-pages bot commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Nov 12, 2025 •

edited

Loading