parallel test discovery + disabled cache

[KRRT7]

PR Type

Enhancement, Tests

---

Description

Add caching to skip unchanged tests
Extract single-file test processing helper
Improve pytest and unittest parameter parsing
Refactor process_test_files implementation

---

Changes walkthrough 📝

	Relevant files
Enhancement	discover_unit_tests.py Refactor test file processing with caching                              codeflash/discovery/discover_unit_tests.py Extracted _process_single_test_file helper function Added caching per test file hash Structured process_test_files to invoke helper Enhanced pytest/unittest parameter detection +169/-164

---

Need help?

Type /help how to ... in the comments thread for any questions about PR-Agent usage.

Check out the documentation for more information.

[github-actions]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

(Review updated until commit a81bb64)

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 4 🔵🔵🔵🔵⚪

🧪 No relevant tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Inconsistent return types Cached tests are added as raw TestsInFile instances, but new tests are wrapped as FunctionCalledInTest, causing type mismatches in function_to_test_map. cached_tests = tests_cache.get_tests_for_file(str(test_file), file_hash) if cached_tests: self_cur = tests_cache.cur self_cur.execute( "SELECT qualified_name_with_modules_from_root FROM discovered_tests WHERE file_path = ? AND file_hash = ?", (str(test_file), file_hash), ) qualified_names = [row[0] for row in self_cur.fetchall()] for cached, qualified_name in zip(cached_tests, qualified_names): function_to_test_map[qualified_name].add(cached) return Indentation error The progress.advance(task_id) call appears misaligned after invoking _process_single_test_file, which may lead to a syntax or runtime indentation issue in process_test_files. progress.advance(task_id) Unreachable code Some test_functions.add calls in the unittest branch lack the '+' marker in the diff and may not be executed, indicating copy-paste or indentation errors that break test discovery. if is_parameterized and new_function == def_name.name: test_functions.add( TestFunction( function_name=def_name.name, test_class=matched_name, parameters=parameters, test_type=functions[0].test_type, ) ) elif function == def_name.name: test_functions.add( TestFunction(

[github-actions]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Latest suggestions up to a81bb64
Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Impact
General	Preserve correct test_type Always using functions[0].test_type ignores the actual test type of each matching function. Build a map from function.test_function to its TestsInFile object and use that to retrieve the correct test_type. codeflash/discovery/discover_unit_tests.py [368-373] +function_map = {elem.test_function: elem for elem in functions} +... TestFunction( function_name=def_name.name, test_class=matched_name, parameters=parameters, - test_type=functions[0].test_type, + test_type=function_map[function].test_type, ) Suggestion importance[1-10]: 8 __ Why: Always using functions[0].test_type ignores the actual test type for each matching function, which can lead to misclassification; building a map to retrieve the correct test_type per function fixes this.	Medium
	Reduce redundant regex calls You’re calling the same regex split twice, which is inefficient and error-prone. Perform the split once into a tuple or list, then unpack the function_name and parameters. codeflash/discovery/discover_unit_tests.py [332-334] if "[" in function.test_function: - function_name = PYTEST_PARAMETERIZED_TEST_NAME_REGEX.split(function.test_function)[0] - parameters = PYTEST_PARAMETERIZED_TEST_NAME_REGEX.split(function.test_function)[1] + parts = PYTEST_PARAMETERIZED_TEST_NAME_REGEX.split(function.test_function) + function_name, parameters = parts[0], parts[1] Suggestion importance[1-10]: 4 __ Why: Calling split twice with the same regex is redundant; unpacking the result once improves readability and offers a small performance benefit.	Low

---

Previous suggestions

Suggestions up to commit 26b738f

Category	Suggestion	Impact
General	Handle worker exceptions gracefully Wrap the call to future.result() in a try/except block so that one worker failure doesn’t crash the entire discovery loop. Log the exception and continue to the next future. codeflash/discovery/discover_unit_tests.py [452-453] for future in as_completed(future_to_file): - _, local_results = future.result() + try: + _, local_results = future.result() + except Exception as e: + logger.error(f"Error processing {future_to_file[future]}: {e}") + continue + for qualified_name, function_called_in_test in local_results: + function_to_test_map[qualified_name].add(function_called_in_test) Suggestion importance[1-10]: 8 __ Why: Wrapping future.result() in a try/except prevents a single worker failure from aborting the entire discovery process, improving robustness without altering functionality.	Medium
	Consolidate module import placement Move the import of module_name_from_file_path to the top of the module alongside other imports to avoid repeated local imports inside loops and improve readability. codeflash/discovery/discover_unit_tests.py [412] -from codeflash.code_utils.code_utils import module_name_from_file_path +# at top of file among other code_utils imports +from codeflash.code_utils.code_utils import ImportErrorPattern, custom_addopts, get_run_tmp_file, module_name_from_file_path Suggestion importance[1-10]: 5 __ Why: Moving the module_name_from_file_path import to the top reduces repeated local imports and enhances readability, but has minimal impact on core functionality.	Low
Possible issue	Use correct test_type per function Do not always use functions[0].test_type for every match, as this can assign the wrong test type. Instead, lookup the TestsInFile instance matching the current function to get its actual test_type. codeflash/discovery/discover_unit_tests.py [347-351] TestFunction( function_name=def_name.name, test_class=matched_name, parameters=parameters, - test_type=functions[0].test_type, + test_type=next(elem.test_type for elem in functions if elem.test_function == function), ) Suggestion importance[1-10]: 8 __ Why: Always using functions[0].test_type can misassign test_type for non-first matches; looking up the matching TestsInFile ensures each TestFunction gets the correct test_type.	Medium

[github-actions]

Persistent review updated to latest commit a81bb64