Added tests for pkg/version

[anujagrawal699]

Description:
This PR introduces tests for pkg/version/sharedcommand/sharedcommand.go and improves test coverage of other files in the version package enhancing it's test coverage to 100%.

Test Coverage:
The test coverage of version package has been improved from 41.67% to 100%. This can be verified in the file directory i.e. pkg/version using go test ./... -coverprofile=coverage.out.

What type of PR is this?
/kind failing-test
/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds comprehensive tests to the version package, improving the overall test coverage and ensuring the reliability and maintainability of the codebase.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes a part of #5235

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

NONE

[karmada-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign kevin-wangzefeng for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[codecov-commenter]

⚠️ Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 30.15%. Comparing base (bcf68fa) to head (56515e1).

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5418      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   30.12%   30.15%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         632      632              
  Lines       43936    43936              
==========================================
+ Hits        13236    13251      +15     
+ Misses      29742    29726      -16     
- Partials      958      959       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	30.15% <ø> (+0.03%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[NishantBansal2003]

I think almost all tests are covered. /lgtm

[anujagrawal699]

I think almost all tests are covered. /lgtm

Thanks @NishantBansal2003 .

[yashpandey06]

@anujagrawal699 its a good practice to run make verify and make test before pushing the changes, so it would help you to see the break points in test (if any)

[anujagrawal699]

@anujagrawal699 its a good practice to run make verify and make test before pushing the changes, so it would help you to see the break points in test (if any)

@yashpandey06 i think CI fails sometimes due to different test environments and some other factors. After retesting the same, it'll pass. If CI workflows of lint or UT fails, then it is a indication of some faults.

[yashpandey06]

@anujagrawal699 its a good practice to run make verify and make test before pushing the changes, so it would help you to see the break points in test (if any)

@yashpandey06 i think CI fails sometimes due to different test environments and some other factors. After retesting the same, it'll pass. If CI workflows of lint or UT fails, then it is a indication of some faults.

@anujagrawal699 yeah exactly, but just to be more sure it will be a good thing if you adapt before pushing the changes .

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

I think almost all tests are covered. /lgtm

The label can be changed to a separate line.

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

/retest

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

This use case may not be appropriate here because an empty string is not valid for the ParseGitVersion method. The expectError parameter is not considered in one dimension.

[anujagrawal699]

Thank you for your review, I added that check due to a new test case where r.Version is nil and I overlooked the expectError parameter in that case.

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

Hi @anujagrawal699, some of the tests added to this file are pointless. The tested method itself creates a struct. More functionality is actually provided by the cobra package. The new tests seem to be testing these features. For karmada, this may be overkill. and is not easy to maintain.

[XiShanYongYe-Chang]

New tests should try to maintain the functional logic of the code. However, some methods are not suitable for adding tests, which not only fails to maintain the code quality, but also increases the code maintenance cost.

We can try to improve the code coverage that contains the code logic, which requires some recognition.

You've done so well before, keep it up. 👍

For the current pr, I suggest to close it first.

[anujagrawal699]

New tests should try to maintain the functional logic of the code. However, some methods are not suitable for adding tests, which not only fails to maintain the code quality, but also increases the code maintenance cost.

We can try to improve the code coverage that contains the code logic, which requires some recognition.

You've done so well before, keep it up. 👍

For the current pr, I suggest to close it first.

Thank you for your guidance and i understand your point about focusing on meaningful tests. I'll align with your feedback while further contributing tests.