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 ?

Agreed, but this reflects the original implementation logic. However, the scope of this PR is purely to improve test coverage. I suggest to avoid mixing different types of changes here - the fix for this operation name should be treated separately. What do you think?

L.E: updated assert by replacing literal string "DeleteItem" with the label value from enum.

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;

Updated with the correct type; also, regenerated equals and hashCode methods for both StaticCounterRecord and BeanCounterRecord.

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"));

Updated the assert to compare both objects (incl. private fields - like clock): initial extension vs rebuilt extension.

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();

I see your point - you are right - but I would suggest something more restrictive for that list (tests) - I added an assert to compare against the current number of methods that qualify for this test - current number: 100, and the assert looks something like:
assertEquals(100, tests.size());

I would take this approach because it works as an additional check when / if someone introduces such methods.

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

Yes, tests containing isValidUuid(*) (and no other assertion) will be fixed in mentioned PR and then we can double check to be sure that we don't miss anything on this PR.

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

Yes, there are some checks regarding get / set methods and an exception is thrown if there are problems, but these tests are not affected by this scenario. Regardless, I appreciate the suggestion and have implemented the fix to ensure the code remains consistent.

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 ?

Same as above: yes, there are some checks regarding get / set methods and an exception is thrown if there are problems, but these tests are not affected by this scenario. Regardless, I appreciate the suggestion and have implemented the fix to ensure the code remains consistent.

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 ?

I removed duplicated tests.

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 ?

Same as above, I removed the duplicated tests.

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?

Good one - thanks! I will give it a try...

Added tests in ChainExtensionTest class:

transactWriteItem_putItemThenUpdateItemAndGetItem_appliesAllChainedExtensions

putItemThenUpdateItemAndGetItem_appliesAllChainedExtensions

batchWriteItem_putTwoItems_appliesAllChainedExtensionsWithoutVersion

batchWriteItem_putTwoItemsAndAppliesAllChainedExtensions_throwsIllegalArgumentException

valeriodelbello-amazon · 2026-02-23T14:51:04Z

...oftware/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/converters/attribute/EnumAttributeConverterTest.java

        EnumAttributeConverter<Person> personConverter = EnumAttributeConverter.createWithNameAsKeys(Person.class);

-        Person john = personConverter.transformTo(AttributeValue.fromS("JOHN"));
+        personConverter.transformTo(AttributeValue.fromS("JOHN"));


I think we should also check the correct enum value is returned, something like

assertThat(personConverter.transformTo(AttributeValue.fromS("JOHN"))).isEqualTo(Person.JOHN);

Good one, thank you! The test should be fine now.

valeriodelbello-amazon · 2026-02-23T15:10:26Z

...a/software/amazon/awssdk/enhanced/dynamodb/functionaltests/AnnotatedBeanTableSchemaTest.java

+import software.amazon.awssdk.services.dynamodb.model.ReturnValue;
+import software.amazon.awssdk.services.dynamodb.model.TableDescription;
+
+public class AnnotatedBeanTableSchemaTest extends LocalDynamoDbSyncTestBase {


Can we use a parameterized test and remove the Immutable and Async variants? They are largely the same code.

We can do it for Bean and Immutable, but not for Sync and Async since there is used a different client type of DynamoDb (sync vs async and is initialized based on inherited test class):

LocalDynamoDbSyncTestBase is used to create DynamoDbClient

LocalDynamoDbAsyncTestBase is used to create DynamoDbAsyncClient

Also, there is an existing "pattern" where tests are already separated based on the used DynamoDb client type (tests for Async client usually starts with "Async*").

Update - I parameterized the mentioned tests (in terms of Bean and Immutable variants) :

AnnotatedBeanTableSchemaTest.java

AnnotatedImmutableTableSchemaTest.java

as: AnnotatedTableSchemaTest.java, and:

AsyncAnnotatedBeanTableSchemaTest.java

AsyncAnnotatedImmutableTableSchemaTest.java

as: AsyncAnnotatedTableSchemaTest.java

Looks good, thanks!

…dding assert for OptionalAttributeValueConverterTest.

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

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 4 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.


		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!

andreas-grafenberger Feb 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

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!

andreas-grafenberger Feb 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

andreas-grafenberger commented Feb 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

andreas-grafenberger Feb 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

andreas-grafenberger Feb 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading