Modeling exercises: Fix manual feedback results not being shown

[muradium]

Checklist

General

• Language: I followed the guidelines for inclusive, diversity-sensitive, and appreciative language.
• I chose a title conforming to the naming conventions for pull requests.

Client

• Important: I implemented the changes with a very good performance, prevented too many (unnecessary) REST calls and made sure the UI is responsive, even with large data (e.g. using paging).
• I strictly followed the principle of data economy for all client-server REST calls.
• I strictly followed the client coding and design guidelines.
• Following the theming guidelines, I specified colors only in the theming variable files and checked that the changes look consistent in both the light and the dark theme.
• I added multiple integration tests (Jest) related to the features (with a high test coverage), while following the test guidelines.
• I documented the TypeScript code using JSDoc style.

Motivation and Context

For modeling exercises, the results don't show manual unreferenced feedback.

Description

This PR fixes the issue by returning both automatic and manual unreferenced feedbacks for modeling exercise results.

Steps for Testing

• Code Review: Ensure that test passes for valid reasons and improvements make sense.
• CI testing: Check that all tests pass.

Testserver States

Note

These badges show the state of the test servers.
Green = Currently available, Red = Currently locked

Review Progress

Code Review

• Code Review 1
• Code Review 2

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Enhanced feedback retrieval functionality to include both manual and automatic unreferenced feedback
  • Simplified feedback processing by consolidating unreferenced feedback methods

• Refactor

  • Renamed getAutomaticUnreferencedFeedback to getUnreferencedFeedback across multiple components
  • Updated test cases to reflect new feedback retrieval approach

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces changes to the feedback retrieval mechanism across multiple files. The primary modification involves renaming the getAutomaticUnreferencedFeedback function to getUnreferencedFeedback and expanding its functionality to include both manual and automatic unreferenced feedback. This change affects the modeling submission component, result utilities, and corresponding test cases, streamlining the approach to retrieving unreferenced feedback.

Changes

File	Change Summary
src/main/webapp/app/exercises/modeling/participate/modeling-submission.component.ts	Updated import and method call from getAutomaticUnreferencedFeedback to getUnreferencedFeedback
src/main/webapp/app/exercises/shared/result/result.utils.ts	Renamed function and modified filtering logic to include both manual and automatic unreferenced feedback
src/test/javascript/spec/component/utils/result.utils.spec.ts	Updated import and test case to reflect the broader scope of unreferenced feedback retrieval

Possibly related PRs

• Modeling exercises: Fix submission error and redundant tooltip for AI feedback #9437: Changes to feedback retrieval logic in ModelingSubmissionComponent
• Assessment: Do not display automatic as additional feedback in the online code editor #10120: Refactoring feedback utility functions to separate manual and automatic feedback

Suggested labels

bugfix, assessment, modeling

Suggested reviewers

• LeonWehrhahn
• EneaGore
• HawKhiem
• BBesrour
• krusche
• Feras797

Finishing Touches

• 📝 Generate Docstrings (Beta)

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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 PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai or @coderabbitai title anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (2)

src/test/javascript/spec/component/utils/result.utils.spec.ts (1)

34-43: Test case updated to cover both manual and automatic unreferenced feedback.

The test case has been appropriately modified to verify that both AUTOMATIC and MANUAL_UNREFERENCED feedback types are included in the results when they have no references.

However, consider adding edge cases to make the test more robust:

 const feedbacks = [
     { reference: 'foo' },
     { reference: 'foo', type: FeedbackType.AUTOMATIC },
     { type: FeedbackType.AUTOMATIC },
     { type: FeedbackType.MANUAL_UNREFERENCED },
     {},
+    { type: FeedbackType.AUTOMATIC, reference: null },
+    { type: FeedbackType.MANUAL_UNREFERENCED, reference: undefined },
+    { type: FeedbackType.MANUAL, reference: undefined },
 ];

src/main/webapp/app/exercises/shared/result/result.utils.ts (1)

128-137: LGTM! Well-documented and type-safe implementation.

The implementation correctly handles both MANUAL_UNREFERENCED and AUTOMATIC feedback types, with proper TypeScript type safety and clear documentation.

Consider a minor optimization for better readability:

 export const getUnreferencedFeedback = (feedbacks: Feedback[] | undefined): Feedback[] | undefined => {
-    return feedbacks
-        ? feedbacks.filter(
-              (feedbackElement) => !feedbackElement.reference && (feedbackElement.type === FeedbackType.MANUAL_UNREFERENCED || feedbackElement.type === FeedbackType.AUTOMATIC),
-          )
-        : undefined;
+    return feedbacks?.filter(
+        (feedbackElement) =>
+            !feedbackElement.reference &&
+            (feedbackElement.type === FeedbackType.MANUAL_UNREFERENCED || feedbackElement.type === FeedbackType.AUTOMATIC),
+    );
 };

📜 Review details

Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between fda9e65 and 43e52b9.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• src/main/webapp/app/exercises/modeling/participate/modeling-submission.component.ts (2 hunks)
• src/main/webapp/app/exercises/shared/result/result.utils.ts (1 hunks)
• src/test/javascript/spec/component/utils/result.utils.spec.ts (2 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (3)

src/main/webapp/app/exercises/shared/result/result.utils.ts (1)

Pattern src/main/webapp/**/*.ts: angular_style:https://angular.io/guide/styleguide;methods_in_html:false;lazy_loading:true;code_reuse:true;tests:meaningful;types:PascalCase;enums:PascalCase;funcs:camelCase;props:camelCase;no_priv_prefix:true;strings:single_quotes;localize:true;btns:functionality;links:navigation;icons_text:newline;labels:associate;code_style:arrow_funcs,curly_braces,open_braces_same_line,indent_4;memory_leak_prevention:true;routes:naming_schema;chart_framework:ngx-charts;responsive_layout:true

src/test/javascript/spec/component/utils/result.utils.spec.ts (1)

Pattern src/test/javascript/spec/**/*.ts: jest: true; mock: NgMocks; bad_practices: avoid_full_module_import; perf_improvements: mock_irrelevant_deps; service_testing: mock_http_for_logic; no_schema: avoid_NO_ERRORS_SCHEMA; expectation_specificity: true; solutions: {boolean: toBeTrue/False, reference: toBe, existence: toBeNull/NotNull, undefined: toBeUndefined, class_obj: toContainEntries/toEqual, spy_calls: {not_called: not.toHaveBeenCalled, once: toHaveBeenCalledOnce, with_value: toHaveBeenCalledWith|toHaveBeenCalledExactlyOnceWith}}

src/main/webapp/app/exercises/modeling/participate/modeling-submission.component.ts (1)

Pattern src/main/webapp/**/*.ts: angular_style:https://angular.io/guide/styleguide;methods_in_html:false;lazy_loading:true;code_reuse:true;tests:meaningful;types:PascalCase;enums:PascalCase;funcs:camelCase;props:camelCase;no_priv_prefix:true;strings:single_quotes;localize:true;btns:functionality;links:navigation;icons_text:newline;labels:associate;code_style:arrow_funcs,curly_braces,open_braces_same_line,indent_4;memory_leak_prevention:true;routes:naming_schema;chart_framework:ngx-charts;responsive_layout:true

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)

• GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis

🔇 Additional comments (2)

src/test/javascript/spec/component/utils/result.utils.spec.ts (1)

7-7: LGTM! Import statement updated correctly.

The import statement has been updated to use getUnreferencedFeedback instead of getAutomaticUnreferencedFeedback, aligning with the changes in the implementation.

src/main/webapp/app/exercises/modeling/participate/modeling-submission.component.ts (1)

667-667: LGTM! Getter updated to use the new function.

The unreferencedFeedback getter has been correctly updated to use getUnreferencedFeedback instead of getAutomaticUnreferencedFeedback.