[UT] add metering consumer ut

[SeanHH86]

merge ut code

MR Summary:

The summary is added by @codegpt.

This Merge Request introduces enhancements and new features across multiple components related to accounting and metering functionalities. Key updates include:

1. Accounting and Metering Enhancements: Added new utility functions and tests for scene validation, formatting, and parameter extraction. This includes determining if billing calculations are necessary based on the scene type, and retrieving SKU unit types and SKU types by scene.

2. NATS Message Queue Improvements: Expanded the MessageQueue interface and NatsHandler implementation to support operations related to fee credit, token, and quota data publishing. This aligns with the broader goal of enhancing metering and billing capabilities.

3. Configuration Management: Updated the configuration structure to include a flag for enabling or disabling charging in the accounting component. This provides flexibility in managing billing features.

4. Database Layer Updates: Enhanced the AccountMeteringStore interface and its implementation with a new method for retrieving metering statistics by date. Accompanied by corresponding unit tests, these changes improve the ability to query and manage metering data.

5. Consumer Logic for Metering: Introduced changes in the metering consumer logic to handle metering messages with retry mechanisms and to publish fee-related events based on the message content. This includes handling different types of fee data (credit, token, quota) and moving messages to a Dead Letter Queue (DLQ) if necessary.

6. Mock Implementations and Tests: Added extensive mock implementations and unit tests across different components to ensure the reliability and correctness of the new functionalities.

This MR aims to bolster the system's accounting and metering capabilities, providing a more robust and flexible framework for handling billing and resource usage tracking.

[starship-github]

Linter Issue Report

During the code review, a list issues were found. These issues could affect the code quality, maintainability, and consistency. Below is the detailed Linter issue report:

accounting/utils/format_test.go

Lint Issue: undefined: ValidateDateTimeFormat

• Location: Line 13, Column 9
• Code Snippet:

  11    layout := "2006-01-02 15:04:05"
  12
  13    res := ValidateDateTimeFormat(timeStr, layout)

• Suggestion: It appears that the function ValidateDateTimeFormat is not defined within this package or imported packages. Ensure that you have defined this function within the utils package or correctly imported the package containing this function. If it's supposed to be part of an external library, verify that the library is correctly imported at the top of your file. Additionally, check for any typos in the function name.

Lint Issue: undefined: ValidateDateTimeFormat

• Location: Line 19, Column 8
• Code Snippet:

  17    timeStr = "2024-11-08"
  18
  19    res = ValidateDateTimeFormat(timeStr, layout)

• Suggestion: Similar to the previous issue, the function ValidateDateTimeFormat is flagged as undefined. Ensure that the function is correctly defined or imported. If this function is part of an external dependency, confirm that the dependency is included in your project's dependencies and that you're importing it correctly. Review the function's spelling and case sensitivity as well.

accounting/utils/parameters_test.go

Lint Issue: undefined: GetSceneFromContext

• Location: Line 24, Column 15
• Code Snippet:

  22:     ginContext.Request = req
  23: 
  24:     res, err := GetSceneFromContext(ginContext)
  25:     require.Nil(t, err)
  26:     require.Equal(t, 2, res)

• Suggestion: It appears that the function GetSceneFromContext is being called but is not defined within the scope of this test file or imported packages. Ensure that GetSceneFromContext is correctly defined in a package that is imported by this test file. If it is supposed to be a new function, you need to implement it. For example:

  func GetSceneFromContext(c *gin.Context) (int, error) {
      // Implementation goes here
  }

Lint Issue: undefined: GetSceneFromContext

• Location: Line 39, Column 15
• Code Snippet:

  37:     ginContext.Request = req
  38: 
  39:     res, err := GetSceneFromContext(ginContext)
  40:     require.NotNil(t, err)
  41:     require.Equal(t, 0, res)

• Suggestion: Similar to the previous issue, the function GetSceneFromContext is called but not found. Ensure the function is defined or correctly imported. If you are adding this function, consider handling different input scenarios, including invalid ones as suggested by the test case "invalid scene value".

---

Please make the suggested changes to improve the code quality.

[starship-github]

Possible Issues And Suggestions:

• _mocks/opencsg.com/csghub-server/mq/mock_MessageQueue.go

  • Comments:
    • The panic inside FetchMeterEventMessages might not be the best way to handle missing return values. Consider returning an error instead.
  • Suggestions:

    if len(ret) == 0 {
        return nil, errors.New("no return value specified for FetchMeterEventMessages")
    }
    

• _mocks/opencsg.com/csghub-server/mq/mock_MessageQueue.go

  • Comments:
    • Similar issue with panic for missing return values in PublishFeeCreditData. Returning an error is more graceful.
  • Suggestions:

    if len(ret) == 0 {
        return errors.New("no return value specified for PublishFeeCreditData")
    }
    

• Line 25 in accounting/consumer/metering.go

  • Comments:
    • The 'chargingEnable' field is added to the Metering struct but not used in any conditional logic, potentially indicating incomplete implementation or dead code.

• accounting/consumer/metering.go

  • Comments:
    • The error from 'msg.Ack()' is logged but not handled, potentially leading to unacknowledged messages in case of failure.
  • Suggestions:

    if err := msg.Ack(); err != nil {
        // Consider requeueing or handling the message differently upon acknowledgment failure.
    }
    

• builder/store/database/account_metering.go

  • Comments:
    • Removal of 'commonTypes' import without removing its usage could lead to compilation errors.

• Line 206 in mq/nats.go

  • Comments:
    • The 'PublishFeeCreditData', 'PublishFeeTokenData', and 'PublishFeeQuotaData' methods are added but not used, indicating potential dead code or incomplete implementation.

• accounting/consumer/metering_test.go

  • Comments:
    • Typo in test case name "mintue" should be "minute".
  • Suggestions:

    {"minute", types.TimeDurationMinType},
    

• builder/store/database/account_metering_test.go

  • Comments:
    • Changing Scene from types.SceneSpace to types.ScenePayOrder without context might affect existing tests. Ensure this change aligns with intended test scenarios.

• Ensure that the panic handling in mock methods is replaced with error returns for better error handling and testability.

MR Evaluation:

This feature is still under test, evaluation are given by AI and might be inaccurate.

After evaluation, the code changes in the Merge Request get score: 100.

Tips

CodeReview Commands (invoked as MR or PR comments)

• @codegpt /review to trigger an code review.
• @codegpt /evaluate to trigger code evaluation process.
• @codegpt /describe to regenerate the summary of the MR.
• @codegpt /secscan to scan security vulnerabilities for the MR or the Repository.
• @codegpt /help to get help.

CodeReview Discussion Chat

There are 2 ways to chat with Starship CodeReview:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by StarShip.
  Example:
  • @codegpt How to fix this bug?
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab):
  Tag @codegpt in a new review comment at the desired location with your query.
  Examples:
  • @codegpt generate unit testing code for this code snippet.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window.
It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks.
For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the MR/PR comments.

CodeReview Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation
  for detailed information on how to use Starship CodeReview.

About Us:

Visit the OpenCSG StarShip website for the Dashboard and detailed information on CodeReview, CodeGen, and other StarShip modules.

[starship-github]

The StarShip CodeReviewer was triggered but terminated because it encountered an issue: The MR state is not opened.

Tips

CodeReview Commands (invoked as MR or PR comments)

• @codegpt /review to trigger an code review.
• @codegpt /evaluate to trigger code evaluation process.
• @codegpt /describe to regenerate the summary of the MR.
• @codegpt /secscan to scan security vulnerabilities for the MR or the Repository.
• @codegpt /help to get help.

CodeReview Discussion Chat

There are 2 ways to chat with Starship CodeReview:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by StarShip.
  Example:
  • @codegpt How to fix this bug?
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab):
  Tag @codegpt in a new review comment at the desired location with your query.
  Examples:
  • @codegpt generate unit testing code for this code snippet.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window.
It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks.
For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the MR/PR comments.

CodeReview Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation
  for detailed information on how to use Starship CodeReview.