Improve Flow Coverage

Improve Flow Coverage

Improve Python flow test coverage for specified C source files by finding coverage gaps and writing tests to close them.

This skill orchestrates /check-flow-coverage (analysis) and /write-flow-tests (test authoring) into a single workflow.

Arguments

• <path>: Path to a C source file.
• <path 1> <path 2>: Multiple C source file paths.

Paths can be relative to the repository root. E.g. src/module.c or src/query.c.

Arguments provided: $ARGUMENTS

Instructions

If no arguments were provided ($ARGUMENTS is empty), stop and ask the user to provide one or more source file paths. Example usage: /improve-flow-coverage src/module.c src/query.c

If the user provides a Rust file path (e.g., under src/redisearch_rs/), stop and redirect them to use /check-rust-coverage instead — this workflow only covers C source files.

Follow these steps in order.

Step 1: Get the coverage report

Run /check-flow-coverage $ARGUMENTS to get the coverage analysis. This will build with coverage instrumentation, run the full test suite, and produce a report of testable coverage gaps grouped by feature.

Step 2: Triage the gaps

Review the coverage report from Step 1. For each testable gap, determine:

1. Which gaps to address with tests — code paths reachable via standard Redis commands (FT.CREATE, FT.SEARCH, FT.AGGREGATE, FT.EXPLAIN, etc.) that should be exercised by flow tests. Group related gaps by feature.

2. Which gaps to address with assertions — unreachable defensive code paths that should be replaced with assertions rather than tested. See "Replacing defensive code with assertions" below.

Present the testable coverage gaps to the user as a structured list, grouped by feature:

• Feature/area name (e.g., "Geometry queries", "Tag prefix edge cases")
• All related line ranges under that feature, with brief descriptions
• Suggested test approach (extend existing test or write new one)
• Which test file to modify

Ask the user which gaps they'd like to address before writing any code.

Step 3: Replace unreachable defensive code with assertions

After the user selects which testable gaps to address, also handle unreachable defensive code paths — code that exists only as a safety net but can never actually be reached at runtime. Instead of silently swallowing impossible conditions, replace them with assertions so that violations are caught during development.

When to use assertions vs. lcov exclusions:

• Replace with RS_ASSERT when the defensive code checks a condition that should never be false. If the condition were ever violated, it would indicate a bug that should be caught immediately — not silently handled. This is the preferred approach for most unreachable defensive code.

• Keep lcov exclusions (LCOV_EXCL_LINE / LCOV_EXCL_START..LCOV_EXCL_STOP) only when the defensive code performs cleanup or resource management that cannot be safely replaced by an assertion (e.g., freeing memory to avoid leaks before returning).

Eligible for replacement with RS_ASSERT:

• Exhaustive switch default/fallthrough arms that exist only for compiler completeness (e.g., default: return NULL in switches over enum types where all valid cases are already handled) — replace the body with RS_ABORT("reason")
• Defensive type checks that guard against impossible node types in a specific context (e.g., a tag eval switch that only receives TOKEN/PREFIX/WILDCARD_QUERY/PHRASE nodes)
• Null checks after internal functions that are guaranteed to return non-NULL in practice (but NOT allocation-failure guards — those should remain as-is or use lcov exclusions)

Still eligible for lcov exclusion only:

• Allocation-failure guards for small fixed-size allocations (if (!ptr) return NULL after malloc/calloc/iterator creation) — these perform cleanup that must remain
• Multi-line defensive blocks that free resources before returning

NOT eligible for either — do not mark or replace these even if currently uncovered:

• Disk-only paths (guarded by diskSpec/SearchDisk) — these are tested separately
• API-only code (reachable via the C module API) — tested by LLAPI unit tests
• Code that is testable but just hasn't been tested yet
• Error handling for user-reachable error conditions

Assertion macros (defined in deps/rmutil/rm_assert.h):

• RS_ASSERT(condition) — debug-only assertion (NOP without ENABLE_ASSERT). Use for conditions that should always hold but where crashing in production is undesirable.
• RS_ASSERT_ALWAYS(condition) — always active, even in release builds. Use sparingly, only for invariants so critical that violating them would cause worse damage than crashing.
• RS_ABORT("reason") — unconditional abort with a message. Use for switch default arms and other paths that should be truly impossible to reach.

Examples:

// BEFORE: defensive default arm silently returns NULL
default:
    return NULL;

// AFTER: assert that we never reach this — all valid types are handled above
default:
    RS_ABORT("unexpected node type in tag eval");
    return NULL;  // unreachable, keeps compiler happy

// BEFORE: defensive null check with fallback behavior
if (!node) return;

// AFTER: assert the invariant — node must always be non-NULL here
RS_ASSERT(node);

// Lcov exclusion is still appropriate for allocation-failure guards with cleanup:
if (!it) { // LCOV_EXCL_START — defensive: allocation failure in iterator creation
    rm_free(its);
    return NULL;
} // LCOV_EXCL_STOP

Step 4: Write or extend tests

After the user selects which coverage gaps to address, write or extend the Python tests.

Follow the guidelines in /write-flow-tests when writing new tests. Also look at nearby tests in the same file for additional style and patterns specific to that file.

Step 5: Verify coverage improvement

After the tests have been written/updated, re-run the coverage pipeline to confirm the previously uncovered lines are now covered.

IMPORTANT: Run the tests exactly once. Do NOT run the same tests twice (e.g., once to check pass/fail and again for coverage). A single RUN_PYTEST COV=1 run both executes the tests and records gcov data. After that single run, check results.

Note: Shell variables do not persist between tool calls. When creating marker files with mktemp, capture the printed path from the command output and substitute it literally in all subsequent commands.

1. Rebuild if any C source was changed:

   ./build.sh COV=1
   

2. Record a start marker so we can check freshness afterward:

   COV_MARKER=$(mktemp /tmp/cov_start_marker.XXXXXX)
   echo "Using marker: $COV_MARKER"
   

3. Run the specific tests that were added/modified (once). COV=1 resets gcov counters, captures the baseline, and runs capture_coverage automatically after the run completes. Use tail to avoid truncation. Set a timeout of at least 300000ms (5 min) for targeted runs — they are faster than the full suite but can still take a few minutes.

   TEST parameter format: The TEST parameter accepts module.function format (e.g., TEST="test_parser.test_my_func") or just a module name (e.g., TEST="test_parser"). Using only a bare function name like TEST="test_my_func" will fail because the runner interprets it as a file path (test_my_func.py).

   # IMPORTANT: Use timeout of 300000ms for this command
   ./build.sh RUN_PYTEST COV=1 TEST="<test_file>" 2>&1 | tail -80
   

4. Check if flow_standalone.info was updated (newer than start marker). Substitute the literal marker path from step 2:

   if [ -f bin/flow_standalone.info ] && [ bin/flow_standalone.info -nt /tmp/cov_start_marker.XXXXXX ]; then
       echo "FRESH — coverage file updated"
   else
       echo "STALE or MISSING — coverage capture failed"
   fi
   rm -f /tmp/cov_start_marker.XXXXXX
   

   If stale or missing, the coverage build may not be instrumented correctly — rebuild with COV=1 FORCE and retry.

5. Re-extract coverage for the target files using the same Python script from /check-flow-coverage Step 3, but only check the specific lines you are trying to cover, not overall coverage. Running a subset of tests will show artificially low overall coverage since most code paths are not exercised.

6. Compare the results: Report which lines are now covered and which gaps remain. If gaps remain, go back to Step 2 for the remaining uncovered paths. If only a few scattered lines remain (e.g., 2-3 lines in error branches or edge cases), note them but do not iterate further — the effort to cover them likely outweighs the benefit.

Notes

• This skill orchestrates /check-flow-coverage and /write-flow-tests — refer to those skills for detailed guidelines on coverage analysis and test authoring respectively.
• The coverage build uses debug-cov flavor with gcov instrumentation for C code.
• Coverage data only tracks C source code under src/ and deps/thpool/.
• This skill does not cover Rust code. For Rust coverage, use /check-rust-coverage.