Fix working day test #2950

KJhellico · 2025-09-20T20:44:24Z

Proposed change

Fix working day test.

Type of change

New country/market holidays support (thank you!)
Supported country/market holidays update (calendar discrepancy fix, localization)
Existing code/documentation/test/process quality improvement (best practice, cleanup, refactoring, optimization)
Dependency update (version deprecation/pin/upgrade)
Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
Breaking change (a code change causing existing functionality to break)
New feature (new holidays functionality in general)

Checklist

I've read and followed the contributing guidelines.
I've run make check locally; all checks and tests passed.

coderabbitai · 2025-09-20T20:44:34Z

Summary by CodeRabbit

Tests
- Updated test utilities to use public date-checking APIs for weekend detection, aligning tests with real-world usage and improving input handling robustness.
Chores
- Internal cleanup to reduce reliance on private helpers in test code for better maintainability.
Impact
- No user-facing changes. Existing functionality and behavior remain the same.

Walkthrough

Replaced a weekend check in tests/common.py to use the public is_weekend(dt) instead of the internal _is_weekend(parse(dt)). is_working_day(dt) usage is unchanged. No modifications to public APIs or exported declarations.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary of Changes
Tests `tests/common.py`	Switched weekend detection from `_is_weekend(parse(dt))` to `is_weekend(dt)`; no other logic altered.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Suggested labels

test

Suggested reviewers

arkid15r
PPsyrius

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title Check	✅ Passed	The title "Fix working day test" accurately and concisely reflects the primary intent of the changeset (a test fix in tests/common.py to correct weekend/working-day logic) and is clear enough for a teammate scanning history to understand the main change.
Description Check	✅ Passed	The PR description states the intent ("Fix working day test"), labels the change as a bugfix, and notes that local checks passed, so it is clearly related to the changeset and meets the lenient description criteria.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.

✨ Finishing touches

📝 Generate Docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests

Create PR with unit tests
Post copyable unit tests in a comment

Warning

There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool's configuration or disable the tool if it's a critical failure.

🔧 Ruff (0.13.1)

tests/common.py

�[1;31mruff failed�[0m
�[1mCause:�[0m Failed to load configuration /ruff.toml
�[1mCause:�[0m Failed to parse /ruff.toml
�[1mCause:�[0m TOML parse error at line 26, column 3
|
26 | "RSE100", # Use of assert detected
| ^^^^^^^^
Unknown rule selector: RSE100

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

sonarqubecloud · 2025-09-20T20:45:21Z

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

codecov · 2025-09-20T20:46:20Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (71f11b7) to head (b973c4e).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on dev.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               dev     #2950   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files          299       299           
  Lines        17834     17834           
  Branches      2295      2295           
=========================================
  Hits         17834     17834

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 71f11b7 and b973c4e.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

tests/common.py (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (4)

📓 Common learnings

Learnt from: PPsyrius
PR: vacanza/holidays#2881
File: tests/countries/test_botswana.py:59-59
Timestamp: 2025-09-14T16:23:46.707Z
Learning: In Botswana's holiday tests, assertNonObservedHoliday(dt) is used to verify that certain holidays (like Easter holidays) stay on their original dates regardless of the observed holiday system, which is different from assertNoNonObservedHoliday that checks for absence of non-observed holidays.

📚 Learning: 2025-09-03T18:29:09.398Z

Learnt from: KJhellico
PR: vacanza/holidays#2820
File: tests/countries/test_saint_helena_ascension_and_tristan_da_cunha.py:76-76
Timestamp: 2025-09-03T18:29:09.398Z
Learning: The assertNoNonObservedHoliday method in tests/common.py accepts a holidays object as its first parameter, followed by the dates to check. Usage like assertNoNonObservedHoliday(self.government_holidays_non_observed, obs_dt) is correct and intended behavior.

Applied to files:

tests/common.py

📚 Learning: 2025-09-14T16:23:46.707Z

Learnt from: PPsyrius
PR: vacanza/holidays#2881
File: tests/countries/test_botswana.py:59-59
Timestamp: 2025-09-14T16:23:46.707Z
Learning: In Botswana's holiday tests, assertNonObservedHoliday(dt) is used to verify that certain holidays (like Easter holidays) stay on their original dates regardless of the observed holiday system, which is different from assertNoNonObservedHoliday that checks for absence of non-observed holidays.

Applied to files:

tests/common.py

📚 Learning: 2025-09-14T16:23:46.707Z

Learnt from: PPsyrius
PR: vacanza/holidays#2881
File: tests/countries/test_botswana.py:59-59
Timestamp: 2025-09-14T16:23:46.707Z
Learning: The method assertNonObservedHoliday(dt) is a valid assertion method in the holidays test framework that verifies holidays occur on their original (non-observed) dates, which is different from assertNoNonObservedHoliday that checks for absence of non-observed holidays. It's used to test that certain holidays stay on fixed dates regardless of observed holiday rules.

Applied to files:

tests/common.py

🧬 Code graph analysis (1)

tests/common.py (1)

holidays/holiday_base.py (1)

is_weekend (1141-1151)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 300000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)

GitHub Check: Test docs build
GitHub Check: Build distribution

tests/common.py

PPsyrius

LGTM 🛠️

Fix working day test

b973c4e

KJhellico requested review from PPsyrius and arkid15r as code owners September 20, 2025 20:44

github-actions bot added the test label Sep 20, 2025

coderabbitai bot reviewed Sep 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

tests/common.py Show resolved Hide resolved

KJhellico mentioned this pull request Sep 20, 2025

Update Taiwan holidays: add support for 1998-2000 special weekend pattern #2948

Merged

9 tasks

PPsyrius approved these changes Sep 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

PPsyrius added a commit to PPsyrius/python-holidays that referenced this pull request Sep 20, 2025

Awating vacanza#2950 changes

4200142

arkid15r added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 20, 2025

Merged via the queue into vacanza:dev with commit ff426f3 Sep 20, 2025
36 checks passed

KJhellico deleted the fix-workday-test branch September 21, 2025 09:40

arkid15r mentioned this pull request Oct 6, 2025

v0.82 #2988

Merged

coderabbitai bot mentioned this pull request Oct 9, 2025

Introduce HolidayBase::_is_weekday method #2999

Merged

9 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Fix working day test #2950

Fix working day test #2950

Uh oh!

KJhellico commented Sep 20, 2025

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 20, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

sonarqubecloud bot commented Sep 20, 2025

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Sep 20, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

PPsyrius left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Uh oh!

Fix working day test #2950

Fix working day test #2950

Uh oh!

Conversation

KJhellico commented Sep 20, 2025

Proposed change

Type of change

Checklist

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 20, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary by CodeRabbit

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated code review effort

Suggested labels

Suggested reviewers

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

Uh oh!

sonarqubecloud bot commented Sep 20, 2025

Quality Gate passed

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Sep 20, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

PPsyrius left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 20, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Sep 20, 2025 •

edited

Loading