Increase code coverage on dynamodb-enhanced module by andreas-grafenberger · Pull Request #6700 · aws/aws-sdk-java-v2

andreas-grafenberger · 2026-02-02T09:23:32Z

Motivation and Context

The goal of this work is to increase unit, functional, and integration code coverage for the
aws-sdk-java-v2/services-custom/dynamodb-enhanced module.

Initial coverage:

Class: 97%
Method: 85%
Line: 87%
Branch: 64%

Target coverage:

Class: ≥ 98%
Method: ≥ 92%
Line: ≥ 92%
Branch: ≥ 85%

Achieved coverage:

Class: 99%
Method: 92%
Line: 94%
Branch: 91%

These results exceed the defined targets and significantly improve confidence in the correctness and stability of the enhanced DynamoDB module.

Modifications

This pull request expands code coverage across the DynamoDB Enhanced Client by introducing new unit, functional, and integration tests targeting previously uncovered or partially covered code paths.

Testing

Existing test suites were executed without regression.
New tests were added to specifically target uncovered branches and methods.
All new and existing tests pass successfully.
Coverage was measured locally after test execution to validate improvements.

Screenshots

Initial coverage:

Achieved coverage:

Types of changes

Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

Checklist

I have read the CONTRIBUTING document
Local run of mvn install succeeds
My code follows the code style of this project
My change requires a change to the Javadoc documentation
I have updated the Javadoc documentation accordingly
I have added tests to cover my changes
All new and existing tests passed
I have added a changelog entry. Adding a new entry must be accomplished by running the scripts/new-change script and following the instructions. Commit the new file created by the script in .changes/next-release with your changes.
My change is to implement 1.11 parity feature and I have updated LaunchChangelog

License

I confirm that this pull request can be released under the Apache 2 license

…dding assert for OptionalAttributeValueConverterTest.

…as part of PR 6373

… 437-increase_test_coverage # Conflicts: # services-custom/dynamodb-enhanced/src/test/java/software/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/functionaltests/extensions/AutoGeneratedUuidExtensionTest.java

# Conflicts: # services-custom/dynamodb-enhanced/src/test/java/software/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/internal/operations/DeleteTableOperationTest.java

# Conflicts: # services-custom/dynamodb-enhanced/src/test/java/software/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/internal/EnhancedClientUtilsTest.java

zoewangg · 2026-04-22T18:25:38Z

+import org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.Configuration;
+import org.apache.logging.log4j.core.config.LoggerConfig;
+
+public final class LogCaptor implements AutoCloseable {


Any reason we can't use the existing LogCaptor class? https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-java-v2/blob/master/test/test-utils/src/main/java/software/amazon/awssdk/testutils/LogCaptor.java

LogCaptor you mention is part of test-utils module, but that module was not added as dependency for dynamodb-enhanced module. Given this small functionality that was needed, I prefered to create a single-class (LogCaptor) instead of importing the entire module (test-utils).

Also, the functionality of the new LogCaptor is manipulating only the targeted logger configuration (adding a new appender and changing the logging level), and doesn't touch the root logger / other loggers configuration (as .../test-utils/.../LogCaptor does).

Another reason is - in the context of .../test-utils/.../LogCaptor, if someone sets any additivity property on false for any monitorized logger, then the tests would fail because the events are not propagated anymore to the root logger (from my point of view, this is a buggy implementation which doesn't allow proper control over logging framework).

To reproduce this buddy behavior - e.g:
Step 1) Go to pom.xml and add dependency to test-utils:

<dependency> <groupId>software.amazon.awssdk</groupId> <artifactId>test-utils</artifactId> <scope>test</scope> </dependency>

Step 2) Go to class: DefaultAttributeConverterProviderTest.class
and replace:

try (LogCaptor logCaptor = new LogCaptor(DefaultAttributeConverterProvider.class, Level.DEBUG)) {

with:

try (software.amazon.awssdk.testutils.LogCaptor logCaptor = software.amazon.awssdk.testutils.LogCaptor.create(org.apache.logging.log4j.Level.DEBUG)) {

Step 3) Go to services-custom/dynamodb-enhanced/src/test/resources/log4j2.properties and use a custom logger configuration:

logger.defaultAttributeConverterProvider.name = software.amazon.awssdk.enhanced.dynamodb.DefaultAttributeConverterProvider logger.defaultAttributeConverterProvider.level = warn logger.defaultAttributeConverterProvider.additivity = false logger.defaultAttributeConverterProvider.appenderRef.console.ref = ConsoleAppender

zoewangg · 2026-04-22T18:27:20Z

+            .stream()
+            .flatMap(this::createTestsForInterface)
+            .collect(toList());
+        assertEquals(102, dynamicTestList.size());


This seems brittle; any future interface change breaks this with a confusing failure. Consider "assertThat(...).isNotEmpty()" instead

Agree - this was the purpose, to gain more control over methods that throw UnsupportedOperation and avoid mistakes. Replacing that assertion with assertThat(...).isNotEmpty() makes the test lose its value.

zoewangg · 2026-04-22T20:35:32Z

+import software.amazon.awssdk.services.dynamodb.model.TableDescription;
+
+@RunWith(Parameterized.class)
+public class AnnotatedTableSchemaTest extends LocalDynamoDbSyncTestBase {


Looks like there is a lot of duplication between AnnotatedTableSchemaTest (715 lines) and AsyncAnnotatedTableSchemaTest (726 lines). At minimum, can we extract the factory to a shared class?

I did so, please see commit: #386e270, modified classes:

.../enhanced/dynamodb/functionaltests/AnnotatedTableSchemaTest.java

.../enhanced/dynamodb/functionaltests/AsyncAnnotatedTableSchemaTest.java

and added class:

.../enhanced/dynamodb/functionaltests/AnnotatedTableSchemaTestSupport.java

zoewangg · 2026-04-22T20:37:58Z

+import software.amazon.awssdk.services.dynamodb.model.ConsumedCapacity;

 @RunWith(MockitoJUnitRunner.class)
 public class EnhancedClientUtilsTest {


The file contains duplicate test pairs:

readAndTransformSingleItem_withNullItemMap_returnsNull and readAndTransformSingleItem_nullItemMap_returnsNull — same test, different names

readAndTransformSingleItem_withEmptyItemMap_returnsNull and readAndTransformSingleItem_emptyItemMap_returnsNull — same test, different names

createKeyFromItem_withPartitionKeyOnly_createsCorrectKey and createKeyFromItem_itemWithPartitionKeyOnly_returnsKeyWithoutSortKey — same test, different na
mes

I missed that - the cleanup was made in commit: #e547100, thanks!

zoewangg · 2026-04-22T20:41:10Z

+import org.junit.After;
+import org.junit.Before;
+import org.junit.Test;
+import org.junit.runner.RunWith;


Junit5 is preferred for new test classes https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-java-v2/blob/master/docs/guidelines/testing-guidelines.md, but I see we are extending existing class that already uses Junit4, so this is probably fine

Yes, I would keep it as it is.
The reason I used Junit4 is related to the class parameterization (instead of method parameterization from Junit 5).
As you already noticed, the base class LocalDynamoDbTestBase already uses Junit4 and mixing both versions of Junit (4 and 5) is causing troubles in some cases, just an example: when using after / before behavior.

zoewangg · 2026-04-22T20:42:14Z

+import static org.hamcrest.MatcherAssert.assertThat;
+import static org.hamcrest.Matchers.is;
+import static org.hamcrest.Matchers.nullValue;


assertJ is preferred over hamcrest for new tests https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-java-v2/blob/master/docs/guidelines/testing-guidelines.md

I performed a quick check through all modified classes and addressed this suggestion - see commit: 87a6083. The commit contains only this kind of refactoring (including for existing tests from modified classes).

zoewangg · 2026-04-22T20:54:09Z

+    public void builder_startAtValueIsLessThanMinusOne_throwsIllegalArgumentException() {
+        assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class,
+                     () -> VersionedRecordExtension.builder().startAt(-2L).build(),
+                     "startAt must be -1 or greater");
+    }
+
+    @Test
+    public void builder_incrementByValueIsLessThanOne_throwsIllegalArgumentException() {
+        assertThrows(IllegalArgumentException.class,
+                     () -> VersionedRecordExtension.builder().incrementBy(0L).build(),
+                     "incrementBy must be greater than 0.");


Can we use parameterized tests?

I did so, please see commit: #386e270, modified class:

.../enhanced/dynamodb/extensions/VersionedRecordExtensionTest.java

zoewangg · 2026-04-22T20:55:04Z

+import software.amazon.awssdk.enhanced.dynamodb.mapper.annotations.DynamoDbPartitionKey;
+import software.amazon.awssdk.services.dynamodb.model.ConditionalCheckFailedException;
+
+public class VersionedRecordExtensionTest extends LocalDynamoDbSyncTestBase {


Can we use ParameterizedTest for versionAttribute_withInvalid* tests?

I did so, please see commit: #386e270, modified class:

.../enhanced/dynamodb/extensions/VersionedRecordExtensionTest.java

zoewangg · 2026-04-22T20:56:25Z

+    }
+
+    @Test
+    public void generateRequest_mergesKeysAndAttributes_incompatibleConsistentRead_throws() {


Same here, it'd be great if we can use ParameterizedTests

I implemented some parameterization, please see commit: #386e270, modified class:

/enhanced/dynamodb/internal/operations/BatchGetItemOperationTest.java

zoewangg · 2026-05-14T23:53:20Z

Closing in favor of #6969

andreas-grafenberger changed the title ~~437 Increase test coverage~~ Increase test coverage Feb 2, 2026

anasatirbasa force-pushed the 437-increase_test_coverage branch from a024740 to fcfbd00 Compare February 10, 2026 17:09

andreas-grafenberger changed the title ~~Increase test coverage~~ Increase code coverage Feb 10, 2026

andreas-grafenberger changed the title ~~Increase code coverage~~ Increase code coverage on dynamodb-enhanced module Feb 10, 2026

anasatirbasa force-pushed the 437-increase_test_coverage branch from 337c117 to f97adfc Compare February 11, 2026 14:26

Increase code coverage on dynamodb-enhanced module

8dd1add

andreas-grafenberger force-pushed the 437-increase_test_coverage branch from 1764264 to 8dd1add Compare February 13, 2026 12:09

andreas-grafenberger marked this pull request as ready for review February 16, 2026 15:56

andreas-grafenberger requested a review from a team as a code owner February 16, 2026 15:57

amzn-erdemkemer reviewed Feb 18, 2026

View reviewed changes

debora-ito added the dynamodb-enhanced label Feb 18, 2026

Merge branch 'master' into 437-increase_test_coverage

b278881

valeriodelbello-amazon reviewed Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread ...oftware/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/converters/attribute/EnumAttributeConverterTest.java Outdated

valeriodelbello-amazon reviewed Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread ...a/software/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/functionaltests/AnnotatedBeanTableSchemaTest.java Outdated

Addressing comments (refactoring, removing duplicated tests).

e33be5f

andreas-grafenberger force-pushed the 437-increase_test_coverage branch from 5016df9 to e33be5f Compare February 25, 2026 08:36

andreas-grafenberger added 9 commits February 25, 2026 12:57

Addressing comments (adding more tests for chain extension).

1ef7ea3

Adding release change note.

523fb64

Merge branch 'master' into 437-increase_test_coverage

adadbe9

Parametrization of annotated bean and immutable table schema tests. A…

377bde1

…dding assert for OptionalAttributeValueConverterTest.

Refactoring test class: AutoGeneratedUuidExtensionTest

d0d61ed

Removing test class: AutoGeneratedUuidExtensionTest... will be added …

0d124ef

…as part of PR 6373

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/437-increase_test_coverage' into…

01a65e1

… 437-increase_test_coverage # Conflicts: # services-custom/dynamodb-enhanced/src/test/java/software/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/functionaltests/extensions/AutoGeneratedUuidExtensionTest.java

Merge branch 'master' into 437-increase_test_coverage

ef3dc6b

Removing unused utils class for tests.

11d648d

amzn-erdemkemer approved these changes Mar 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

andreas-grafenberger added 4 commits April 3, 2026 17:56

Merge branch 'master' into 437-increase_test_coverage

55633a3

# Conflicts: # services-custom/dynamodb-enhanced/src/test/java/software/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/internal/operations/DeleteTableOperationTest.java

Fixing conflict and updated tests.

d2322c6

Merge branch 'master' into 437-increase_test_coverage

53b6218

# Conflicts: # services-custom/dynamodb-enhanced/src/test/java/software/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/internal/EnhancedClientUtilsTest.java

Fixing conflicts on EnhancedClientUtilsTest

1f8a330

zoewangg reviewed Apr 22, 2026

View reviewed changes

andreas-grafenberger added 4 commits April 28, 2026 10:46

Removing duplicate test pairs.

e547100

Replacing hamcrest imports with assertj.

87a6083

Merge branch 'master' into 437-increase_test_coverage

84bdb63

Tests refactorization (parameterization).

386e270

zoewangg approved these changes Apr 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'master' into 437-increase_test_coverage

7815adf

zoewangg mentioned this pull request May 14, 2026

Increase code coverage on dynamodb-enhanced module #6969

Open

zoewangg closed this May 14, 2026

Conversation

andreas-grafenberger commented Feb 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Motivation and Context

Initial coverage:

Target coverage:

Achieved coverage:

Modifications

Testing

Screenshots

Initial coverage:

Achieved coverage:

Types of changes

Checklist

License

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

zoewangg commented May 14, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

andreas-grafenberger commented Feb 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading