[IMP] improve test coverage

[emjay0921]

Why is this change needed?

Batch 1 for improving tests:

• spp_change_request_base
• spp_registry_approval

How was the change implemented?

Added tests

New unit tests

+ TestChangeRequestBase
+ TestChangeRequestSourceMixin
+ TestDMSFile
+ TestWizards

+ SppRegistryApprovalTest

Unit tests executed by the author

All of the new tests

How to test manually

Related links

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @emjay0921, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request significantly improves the test coverage for the spp_registry_approval module, specifically focusing on the res.partner model's state management and approval workflows. It introduces a new, comprehensive suite of unit tests to ensure the robustness and correctness of these critical functionalities under various user permissions and scenarios.

Highlights

• New Test Module: A new test module has been introduced under spp_registry_approval/tests/ to house unit tests for the spp_registry_approval functionality.
• Comprehensive Unit Tests for res.partner Approval: A new test file, test_res_partner.py, has been added, providing extensive unit tests for the res.partner model's approval workflow. This includes testing default states, permission-based state transitions (approve, reject, reset to draft), and handling of various user roles.
• Edge Case and Utility Testing: The new test suite covers important edge cases such as approving multiple records, handling empty recordsets, verifying the definition of state constants, and confirming the proper use of sudo() within the approval methods to ensure operations succeed even with restricted user access.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments or fill out our survey to provide feedback.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces new tests for registry approval functionality. The review focuses on improving test isolation and correctness, particularly in the sudo() usage test. The suggestion includes creating a record rule to properly test the bypass of access restrictions using sudo().

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 99.87229% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 79.20%. Comparing base (c582798) to head (c7e1fb3).
⚠️ Report is 29 commits behind head on 17.0.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
spp_change_request/tests/test_models.py	95.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             17.0     #825      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   77.33%   79.20%   +1.87%     
==========================================
  Files         757      766       +9     
  Lines       19714    20355     +641     
  Branches     2383     2392       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits        15245    16123     +878     
+ Misses       3938     3678     -260     
- Partials      531      554      +23     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
3 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[emjay0921]

Moved to another PR: #851. I'll close it now.