[Test] 검색+RAG 통합 e2e 테스트 - #79
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 51 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthrough검색+RAG 통합 E2E 테스트 결과 문서를 추가했다. 실제 인프라 환경의 정상 응답과 Ollama 장애 응답, 자동화 테스트 결과, similarityScore 및 citations 관련 이슈와 후속 검증 계획을 기록한다. Changes검색+RAG 통합 E2E 검증
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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. Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@docs/test-results/kangcheolung-`#78-search-rag-e2e-test.md:
- Around line 92-95: 문서의 환각 방지 결론을 단일 테스트 실행에서 관찰된 결과로 제한하세요. 해당 문장을 이 시나리오에서
Python 내용이 answer에 포함되지 않았다고 표현하도록 완화하고, 더미 임베딩 환경에서 일반적인 환각 방지 효과를 보장하는 듯한 서술은
제거하세요.
- Around line 152-160: Update the `#78` test-results documentation to resolve the
listed incomplete scenarios: add results for NO_CONTEXT, the permission case
using test@gmail.com, and input validation for empty queryText and topK values
of 21 or higher. If this PR does not cover them, explicitly track each as a
follow-up issue instead of leaving them only marked as pending.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: c5d11e78-d591-461d-bbe8-6a7f239db4b5
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
docs/test-results/kangcheolung-#78-search-rag-e2e-test.md
| ## 미완료 시나리오 (인덱싱 파이프라인 완성 후 재시도) | ||
|
|
||
| | 시나리오 | 상태 | 사유 | | ||
| |---|---|---| | ||
| | 정상 케이스 B (다른 문서 관련 질문) | 보류 | 실제 임베딩 없이는 결과 신뢰 불가 | | ||
| | NO_CONTEXT (무관한 질문) | 보류 | 위와 동일 | | ||
| | 권한 케이스 (`test@gmail.com`으로 동일 질문) | 보류 | 위와 동일 | | ||
| | 입력 검증 (`queryText` 빈 값, `topK` 21 이상) | 보류 | RAG 블록과 무관, 독립적으로 진행 가능하나 이번 세션에서 미실시 | | ||
| | Ollama 장애 케이스 (의도적 재현) | **완료** (우연히 재현됨) | 위 "에러 케이스" 참고 | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
🧩 Analysis chain
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
set -euo pipefail
echo "== locate files =="
git ls-files | rg '(^|/)docs/test-results/|docs/(test-results|design)/' | sed -n '1,120p'
echo
echo "== target file excerpt =="
if [ -f "docs/test-results/kangcheolung-#78-search-rag-e2e-test.md" ]; then
nl -ba "docs/test-results/kangcheolung-#78-search-rag-e2e-test.md" | sed -n '1,220p'
fi
echo
echo "== search for issue/pr references around test result document =="
rg -n "NO_CONTEXT|권한|입력 검증|topK|queryText|RAG|`#78`|search rag|search-rag|pull request|PR" -S --glob '!node_modules/**' . | sed -n '1,240p'Repository: DocGrid/backend
Length of output: 2105
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
set -euo pipefail
echo "== target file excerpt =="
awk '{printf "%6d %s\n", NR, $0}' "docs/test-results/kangcheolung-#78-search-rag-e2e-test.md" | sed -n '1,230p'
echo
echo "== repository references to `#78` or target scenarios =="
rg -n "NO_CONTEXT|무관한 질문|권한 케이스|test@gmail.com|입력 검증|queryText|topK|21|RAG 블록|`#78`|검색|RAG|search" -S --glob '!node_modules/**' . | sed -n '1,260p'Repository: DocGrid/backend
Length of output: 50373
🌐 Web query:
kangcheolung-#78-search-rag-e2e-test.md #78 search rag integration e2e test GitHub
💡 Result:
The query "kangcheolung-#78-search-rag-e2e-test.md" does not correspond to a known public technical specification, standard, or widely recognized open-source project. Searches for this specific identifier do not return matching GitHub issues or documentation [1][2][3][4][5]. It is highly likely that "kangcheolung" refers to a personal GitHub username [1], and "#78" likely refers to a specific issue or pull request number within a private or local repository that is not indexed on the public web. In the context of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) systems, "search rag integration e2e test" refers to end-to-end testing practices for verifying the full pipeline of a RAG application, from document retrieval to generative output. Authoritative practices for such tests typically include: 1. Verification Layers: Separating testing into Retrieval (Recall@K, MRR), Generation (Faithfulness, groundedness), and End-to-End performance (Latency, hallucination rate, and E2E success rate) [6][7]. 2. Test Implementation: E2E tests for RAG systems are often implemented using frameworks like PyTest (often with AsyncMock for handling API calls) [8][9] or specialized evaluation tools like DeepEval [10]. 3. Typical Scenarios: Common E2E test cases include verifying multi-provider orchestration [8], custom search provider integration [11], and ensuring that retrieval results are correctly mapped and cited in the final LLM response [12][9]. If you are working on a specific repository, please check the local tests/e2e/ directory or the issue tracker associated with that repository for the exact implementation details [9][13].
Citations:
- 1: https://github.com/NamCheolUng/css
- 2: https://github.com/kanglicheng/LintCode
- 3: https://github.com/dulingkang/Algorithm
- 4: https://github.com/gyeongseokKang/flutter_tutorial
- 5: https://github.com/Larry-kang/LeetCode
- 6: https://wizzy.ai/blog/rag-search/
- 7: https://medium.com/@hjparmar1944/testing-18-rag-techniques-to-find-the-best-retrieval-setup-a6dbc0712b6d
- 8: https://github.com/CorvinLabs/CorvinOS/blob/main/operator/rag-integration/tests/test_phase3_e2e.py
- 9: https://github.com/aqlanhattem/enterprise-agentic-rag
- 10: https://comidoc.com/udemy/ai-testing-deepeval-chatbot-rag-agent-mcp
- 11: https://github.com/CorvinLabs/CorvinOS/blob/main/operator/rag-integration/tests/test_custom_provider_e2e.py
- 12: https://brian-223134.github.io/interview/03/
- 13: https://github.com/cogitator-ai/Cogitator-AI/tree/main/packages/e2e/src/__tests__
검증 대상으로 명시된 미완료 시나리오를 처리하세요.
#78 테스트 결과 문서의 미완료 항목에 NO_CONTEXT, 권한, 입력 검증이 보류로 남아 있습니다. 이 PR이 #78을 종료하는 경우라면 해당 결과를 추가하거나, 그렇지 않다면 후속 이슈로 명시해야 합니다. queryText 빈 값과 topK 21 이상 검증은 인덱싱 파이프라인 완료와 무관하게 별도로 진행 가능합니다.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@docs/test-results/kangcheolung-`#78-search-rag-e2e-test.md around lines 152 -
160, Update the `#78` test-results documentation to resolve the listed incomplete
scenarios: add results for NO_CONTEXT, the permission case using test@gmail.com,
and input validation for empty queryText and topK values of 21 or higher. If
this PR does not cover them, explicitly track each as a follow-up issue instead
of leaving them only marked as pending.
환각 방지 관련 결론을 단일 질의 관찰로 범위를 명확히 하고, 인덱싱 파이프라인과 무관하게 검증 가능한 입력 검증 항목을 "보류"에서 "확인됨"으로 정리한다(검색 블록 #56에서 이미 검증된 로직, RAG 통합으로 변경 없음).
1 participant
🔍️ 작업 내용
✨ 상세 설명
RAG 블록(F-RAG-01~05) 구현 완료 후, 실제 인프라(Postgres/embedding-server/Ollama)를 띄운 상태에서
POST /search를 Swagger로 수동 e2e 테스트했습니다.results+answer+citations통합 응답 확인, 환각 방지 프롬프트 정상 동작 확인RAG_SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE)이 실제로 재현되어 정상 처리되는지 확인자세한 내용은
docs/test-results/kangcheolung-#78-search-rag-e2e-test.md참고해주세요.🛠️ 추후 리팩토링 및 고도화 계획
📸 스크린샷 (선택)
N/A
💬 리뷰 요구사항
Summary by CodeRabbit