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

amzn-erdemkemer · 2026-02-18T11:35:31Z

...a/software/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/internal/operations/DeleteTableOperationTest.java

+    @Test
+    public void returnsCorrectOperationName() {
+        DeleteTableOperation<FakeItemWithIndices> operation = DeleteTableOperation.create();
+        assertThat(operation.operationName().label(), is("DeleteItem"));


is("DeleteItem") , should this be delete table ?

amzn-erdemkemer · 2026-02-18T11:40:22Z

...e/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/functionaltests/extensions/AtomicCounterExtensionTest.java

+            if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass()) {
+                return false;
+            }
+            StaticCounterRecord that = (StaticCounterRecord) o;


Should this be ?

BeanCounterRecord that = (BeanCounterRecord) o;

amzn-erdemkemer · 2026-02-18T11:42:22Z

...re/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/extensions/AutoGeneratedTimestampRecordExtensionTest.java

+
+        AutoGeneratedTimestampRecordExtension.Builder rebuilt = extension.toBuilder();
+
+        assertThat(rebuilt).isNotNull();


we only check is it is not null but shouldn't we check if we preserved the value ?\

assertThat(generatedInstant).isEqualTo(Instant.parse("2025-01-01T00:00:00Z"));

amzn-erdemkemer · 2026-02-18T11:44:55Z

...st/java/software/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/DefaultMethodsUnsupportedOperationTest.java

+
+    @TestFactory
+    Stream<DynamicTest> testDefaultMethodsThrowUnsupportedOperation() {
+        return scanPackageForClasses(BASE_PACKAGE)


This will silently return nothing and the test will be passed automatically. You may consider to check if we have any tests returned from the operation before returning values..

Stream<DynamicTest> testDefaultMethodsThrowUnsupportedOperation() { List<DynamicTest> tests = scanPackageForClasses(BASE_PACKAGE) .filter(Class::isInterface) .filter(this::hasDefaultMethods) .collect(toList()) .stream() .flatMap(this::createTestsForInterface) .collect(toList()); assertThat(tests).as("Expected to find interfaces with default UnsupportedOperation methods, " + "but classpath scan returned nothing. Check classpath configuration.") .isNotEmpty(); return tests.stream();

amzn-erdemkemer · 2026-02-18T11:48:48Z

...azon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/functionaltests/extensions/AutoGeneratedUuidExtensionTest.java

+        mappedTable.putItem(record);
+        RecordWithAutogeneratedUuid result = mappedTable.scan().items().stream().findFirst()
+                                                        .orElseThrow(() -> new AssertionError("No record found"));
+        isValidUuid(result.getId());


This is not an assertion but I think we will be fixed in PR 6373 and we can rebaseline on that

amzn-erdemkemer · 2026-02-18T11:52:07Z

.../java/software/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/functionaltests/models/AbstractImmutable.java

+        return sort;
+    }
+
+    public String stringAttribute() {


should this be getStringAttribute() ?

I think the SDK's ImmutableTableSchema uses getter naming conventions. This may cause the attribute to not be mapped correctly

amzn-erdemkemer · 2026-02-18T11:52:49Z

...st/java/software/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/functionaltests/models/SimpleImmutable.java

+        return sort;
+    }
+
+    public String stringAttribute() {


same as in abstract model, shouldn't this be getStringAttribute ?

amzn-erdemkemer · 2026-02-18T11:54:31Z

...src/test/java/software/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/internal/EnhancedClientUtilsTest.java

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


is this really different than createKeyFromItem_partitionKeyOnly_returnsKeyWithPartitionOnly ?

amzn-erdemkemer · 2026-02-18T11:56:00Z

...src/test/java/software/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/internal/EnhancedClientUtilsTest.java

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


is this testing something different than keyRef_attributeNameWithSpecialCharacters_returnsCleanedReference ?

amzn-erdemkemer · 2026-02-18T12:00:51Z

.../software/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/functionaltests/extensions/ChainExtensionTest.java

+import software.amazon.awssdk.enhanced.dynamodb.mapper.annotations.DynamoDbBean;
+import software.amazon.awssdk.enhanced.dynamodb.mapper.annotations.DynamoDbPartitionKey;
+
+public class ChainExtensionTest extends LocalDynamoDbSyncTestBase {


I think more important part of chaining extensions is interaction across operations. Missing: updateItem (does version increment while UUID stays stable?)

Could you add tests for updateItem, batchWriteItem, and transactWriteItems?

The updateItem case will be worth to test, AutoGeneratedUuidExtension always regenerates the UUID on every write, while VersionedRecordExtension increments the version. What happens when both run on an update? Does the version increment correctly? Does the timestamp update?

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

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Increase code coverage on dynamodb-enhanced module#6700

Increase code coverage on dynamodb-enhanced module#6700
andreas-grafenberger wants to merge 1 commit intoaws:masterfrom
anasatirbasa:437-increase_test_coverage

andreas-grafenberger commented Feb 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

amzn-erdemkemer Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

amzn-erdemkemer Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

amzn-erdemkemer Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

amzn-erdemkemer Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

amzn-erdemkemer Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

amzn-erdemkemer Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

amzn-erdemkemer Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

amzn-erdemkemer Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

amzn-erdemkemer Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

amzn-erdemkemer Feb 18, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Comments


		AutoGeneratedTimestampRecordExtension.Builder rebuilt = extension.toBuilder();

		assertThat(rebuilt).isNotNull();

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!

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!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Comments

andreas-grafenberger commented Feb 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading