Numeric initial value no longer hardcoded to 0

[olliesilvester]

New logic for initial value on numeric datatypes. Not obvious to me what the initial value should with a given set of upper and lower bounds, this seemed sensible-ish to me. Depending on the bounds specified, initial val is either set to the min, 0, or the max

Fixes #414

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes

  • Numeric fields now start with a valid initial value when their configured range excludes zero.
  • Positive minimums and fully negative ranges are handled correctly.

• Tests

  • Added coverage for constrained and unconstrained numeric ranges, including positive-only and negative-only values.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 20eea645-e608-4627-9ec6-fdf89ad0e299

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f0e3356 and edddc12.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• src/fastcs/datatypes/_numeric.py
• tests/test_datatypes.py

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Changes

Numeric initial value selection

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Bound-aware initial values src/fastcs/datatypes/_numeric.py, tests/test_datatypes.py	_Numeric.initial_value returns a valid positive minimum or negative bound when zero is outside the configured range. Parameterized tests cover Int and Float datatypes with bounded and unbounded configurations.

Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly describes the main change to numeric initial-value logic.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The changes address issue #414 by selecting a valid positive minimum instead of using 0 as the numeric initial value.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	The implementation and tests are limited to numeric initial-value selection required by issue #414.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

tests/transports/epics/pva/test_p4p.py (1)

229-232: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | ⚡ Quick win

Make the AttrW test distinguish the fallback source.

AttrW(Int()) expects 0, so the test also passes if the implementation uses a hard-coded 0. Use a datatype fixture with a non-zero initial_value and assert that value.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@tests/transports/epics/pva/test_p4p.py` around lines 229 - 232, Update
test_attr_w_shared_write_pv_uses_datatype_initial_value to construct AttrW with
a datatype fixture whose initial_value is non-zero, then assert
shared_pv.current()["value"] matches that value instead of hard-coded zero. Keep
the test focused on verifying the datatype-provided initial value.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

Nitpick comments:
In `@tests/transports/epics/pva/test_p4p.py`:
- Around line 229-232: Update
test_attr_w_shared_write_pv_uses_datatype_initial_value to construct AttrW with
a datatype fixture whose initial_value is non-zero, then assert
shared_pv.current()["value"] matches that value instead of hard-coded zero. Keep
the test focused on verifying the datatype-provided initial value.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: b1b6c2f7-3ed9-4a08-af70-5e5cd8bd99b8

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a2e77b6 and f0e3356.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• src/fastcs/transports/epics/pva/_pv_handlers.py
• tests/transports/epics/pva/test_p4p.py

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.42%. Comparing base (a2e77b6) to head (1720bc9).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #415      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.41%   91.42%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          72       72              
  Lines        2935     2939       +4     
==========================================
+ Hits         2683     2687       +4     
  Misses        252      252              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[shihab-dls]

Very cool, thank you!