potiuk commented on code in PR #59785:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/59785#discussion_r2649038900
##########
airflow-core/tests/unit/cli/commands/test_dag_command.py:
##########
@@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ def test_cli_report(self, stdout_capture):
dag_command.dag_report(args)
out = temp_stdout.getvalue()
- assert "airflow/example_dags/example_complex.py" in out
Review Comment:
I certainly prefer this:
```python
import json
data = json.loads(out)
assert any(item["file"].endswith("example_complex.py") for item in data)
```
I find that one actually better and more robust, because it also checks for
the correctness of the format and it expresses the intent of the test much
better, it is just obvious what you are testing for. I consider tests as part
of the "specification" of what the thing being tested is supposed to do and the
current form is quite ambiguous about the intentions.
But I would rather be interested to hear what you think, not what Claude
suggests. There are some factual statement about those differnt options but I
do not find it provide deeper reasoning.
I personally rarely use AI to do reviews or respond to reviews. IMHO review
process is where I am interested more in conversation with human and
understanding what their way of thinking is (even if they look at claude's
suggestions before they formulate their thoughts). Review process is all about
human connecting. It's also, I think where learning and listening to other's
thought process is interesting andd people grow a lot during code reviews
(usually both sides).
I certainly prefer that than discussing with verbatim, copy-pasted AI
suggestions, so I find it slightly odd to do it this way.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
