Yicong-Huang opened a new pull request, #5024:
URL: https://github.com/apache/texera/pull/5024

   ### What changes were proposed in this PR?
   
   Two changes scoped to `common/pybuilder`:
   
   1. Add `PyBuilder` to the root `TexeraProject` `aggregate(...)` list, 
grouped under "common libraries" together with `DAO`, `Config`, `Auth`, 
`WorkflowCore`, and `WorkflowOperator`. Previously `PyBuilder` was the only sbt 
project defined but not aggregated, which meant `sbt test` from the repo root 
silently skipped it. CI still ran `PyBuilder/jacoco` explicitly so coverage 
reporting was unaffected, but the local/CI matrix mismatch was confusing.
   
   2. Add `PythonTemplateBuilderApiSpec` to cover non-macro pieces of 
`PythonTemplateBuilder` that the existing `PythonTemplateBuilderSpec` only 
touches incidentally — factory constructors, render-mode singletons, renderer 
behavior in both modes, `fromInterpolated` precondition, `+(String)` 
`UnsupportedOperationException`, and `render()` CR/CRLF normalization. The spec 
also pins current `PythonLexerUtils` behavior on Python triple-quoted strings 
(the lexer is intentionally conservative and is not triple-quote-aware; pinned 
so a future triple-quote-aware change trips the spec deliberately).
   
   ### Any related issues, documentation, discussions?
   
   Resolves #5023
   
   ### How was this PR tested?
   
   `sbt PyBuilder/test` — 125 tests pass (32 new). `sbt PyBuilder/jacoco` line 
coverage went from 30.12% to 31.73% and method coverage from 13.17% to 15.30% 
(6 newly covered methods); the rest of `PythonTemplateBuilder.scala` is the 
`pybImpl` macro body which jacoco cannot instrument at runtime.
   
   ### Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
   
   Generated-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context)
   


-- 
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]

Reply via email to