test: add unit tests for iam service account management

[joehan]

Description

Working on a new AI workflow for generating tests to improve out coverage. This one seems fine to me, though they are definitely on the simple side.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @joehan, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request significantly enhances the test coverage for the GCP IAM service account management module. It introduces a suite of unit tests that validate the core functionalities related to service accounts, including their creation, retrieval, deletion, and key management, as well as fetching IAM role details. This effort is part of an initiative to improve overall test coverage, potentially leveraging AI-driven test generation.

Highlights

• New Unit Tests for IAM Service Account Management: Added a comprehensive suite of unit tests for various Google Cloud Platform (GCP) Identity and Access Management (IAM) service account functionalities.
• Service Account Creation and Retrieval: Introduced tests for createServiceAccount to verify the successful creation of service accounts with specified details, and for getServiceAccount to ensure correct retrieval of existing service account information.
• Service Account Key Management: Implemented tests for createServiceAccountKey to validate the generation of new service account keys and for listServiceAccountKeys to confirm the ability to list all keys associated with a service account.
• Service Account Deletion: Developed tests for deleteServiceAccount to ensure the successful removal of service accounts from a project.
• IAM Role Retrieval: Incorporated a unit test for getRole to verify the correct retrieval of IAM role details, such as name and title.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request adds a good set of baseline unit tests for the IAM service account management functions. The tests cover the happy paths well. To improve robustness, I recommend adding test cases for error scenarios, such as when the API returns an error status code. I've provided a specific suggestion for deleteServiceAccount to illustrate this. Similar tests for error handling could be added for the other functions as well.

[gemini-code-assist]

The current test only covers the success case for deleting a service account. The deleteServiceAccount function is implemented to not throw an error on failure (e.g., if the account doesn't exist), because it uses resolveOnHTTPError: true. It would be beneficial to add a test case to verify this behavior, ensuring that the function correctly handles cases like a 404 Not Found response from the API without throwing an exception.

    describe("deleteServiceAccount", () => {
      it("should delete a service account", async () => {
        nock("https://iam.googleapis.com")
          .delete(`/v1/projects/${PROJECT_ID}/serviceAccounts/${EMAIL}`)
          .reply(200, {});

        await iam.deleteServiceAccount(PROJECT_ID, EMAIL);

        expect(nock.isDone()).to.be.true;
      });

      it("should not throw if deleting a non-existent service account", async () => {
        nock("https://iam.googleapis.com")
          .delete(`/v1/projects/${PROJECT_ID}/serviceAccounts/${EMAIL}`)
          .reply(404);

        await iam.deleteServiceAccount(PROJECT_ID, EMAIL);

        expect(nock.isDone()).to.be.true;
      });
    });