83 lines
5.6 KiB
Markdown
83 lines
5.6 KiB
Markdown
# Review: SCP/SFTP Implementation vs Test Plan
|
|
|
|
## 1. Summary Assessment
|
|
|
|
The implementation of SCP/SFTP functionality in the codebase generally aligns well with the requirements and scenarios described in `scp_plan.md`. The core file transfer operations, pre-transfer validations, disk space checks, conflict resolution strategies, and Pydantic models are all implemented as specified. There is evidence of error handling for disk space, file size, and transfer interruptions. However, some important planned test cases—particularly for failures, edge cases, and cleanup behaviors—are not yet present or comprehensive in the test suite. The implementation quality is solid, though a few opportunities for further alignment and robustness exist around partial transfer recovery and negative paths.
|
|
|
|
## 2. Alignment Strengths
|
|
|
|
- **Core Feature Fulfillment:** All planned file transfer operations (`upload_file`, `download_file`, `list_directory`, `remove_file`, `get_disk_usage`) are implemented with proper hooks via `SSHSession` and `SSHServerMCP` tool methods.
|
|
- **Validation Logic:** Pre-transfer file size and filesystem space checks are present and generally follow the plan (including use of `df -k` remotely and stat calls locally).
|
|
- **Conflict Resolution:** The three planned behaviors (`FAIL`, `OVERWRITE`, `RENAME`) are implemented and configurable via parameters.
|
|
- **Parameter Model:** Enhanced Pydantic models for transfer parameters match the plan.
|
|
- **Disk and Size Error Handling:** Clear, explicit error returns for disk/size problems, with informative messages.
|
|
- **Partial Transfer Cleanup:** Mechanism exists for removing partial files on failure, in line with the plan.
|
|
- **Documentation:** The README and code comments provide good coverage of usage and behavior.
|
|
|
|
## 3. Alignment Gaps
|
|
|
|
### Critical
|
|
- **Test Coverage for Edge Cases:**
|
|
- Tests for file transfer edge cases (size limits, disk space, conflict strategies, interruptions, etc.) are missing or incomplete in the provided test files (`test_server.py`).
|
|
- No tests for partial transfer recovery or correct cleanup/notification on interruption/failure.
|
|
|
|
### Major
|
|
- **Automatic Resume:**
|
|
- Resume of interrupted transfers is mentioned in the plan as "if feasible," but there is no implementation or related documentation explaining the limitation or fallback behavior.
|
|
- **Negative Path Robustness:**
|
|
- Not all negative/exception paths (e.g., SFTP disconnects, mid-transfer interruptions, permission errors) are fully tested.
|
|
|
|
### Minor
|
|
- **Partial File Extension Option:**
|
|
- Plan mentions moving incomplete files to `.partial` or temp, but the code simply deletes partials without offering retention/rename as a config option.
|
|
- **Error Details:**
|
|
- While errors are returned, sometimes they could include additional actionable detail (how many bytes were successfully transferred, or guidance for retry/cleanup).
|
|
- **Environmental & Config Testing:**
|
|
- Tests relying only on environment/config variable injection are limited; more direct parameterization could improve flexibility.
|
|
|
|
## 4. Implementation Quality
|
|
|
|
- **Code Structure:** Clean separation of concerns (SSH session vs. API/server glue); logical organization.
|
|
- **Readability:** Good use of logging, helpful error messages, and Pydantic models.
|
|
- **Extensibility:** Facility for prefixed tool names and multi-server operation is robust.
|
|
- **Error Handling:** Generally graceful; improves reliability and usability for clients.
|
|
- **Documentation:** Above average both in code and README.
|
|
|
|
## 5. Coverage Analysis
|
|
|
|
- **Positive Paths:** Connection and command execution have solid but basic tests (mocked, deterministic).
|
|
- **File Transfer:** No dedicated direct tests for SCP/SFTP upload/download behavior with parameter edge cases.
|
|
- **Cleanup and Edge Cases:** No automated tests for transfer interruption, disk full, precondition fail, or partial files.
|
|
- **API/Model Alignment:** Parameters (`max_size`, `on_conflict`, etc.) align, though tests do not fully exercise them.
|
|
|
|
## 6. Recommendations
|
|
|
|
1. **Test Expansion:**
|
|
- Add test cases for all file transfers, explicitly testing:
|
|
- Size limit enforcement (upload/download fails as expected for large files)
|
|
- Disk space checks on both source and destination
|
|
- All three conflict modes (FAIL, OVERWRITE, RENAME)
|
|
- Partial transfer cleanup after interruption (can mock/force error during transfer)
|
|
- Return values and error messages for negative scenarios
|
|
- Handling and explicit notification of interruptions/errors
|
|
|
|
2. **Partial/Resumed Transfers:**
|
|
- If not planning to implement resume support, explicitly document the limitation and ensure client is notified accordingly.
|
|
- Optionally, enable configurable retention or renaming of incomplete files rather than always deleting.
|
|
|
|
3. **Negative Path Coverage:**
|
|
- Test and handle remote permission errors, disconnects, and underlying SFTP failures, especially during file manipulations.
|
|
|
|
4. **Parameterization:**
|
|
- Consider adding more flexible ways to set parameters for transfers/tests (beyond environment only).
|
|
|
|
5. **Documentation:**
|
|
- Expand documentation on error behaviors, retry/cleanup advice, and feature limitations.
|
|
|
|
## 7. Questions
|
|
|
|
1. Is partial transfer resume intended to be supported, or should this be explicitly documented as a limitation?
|
|
2. Should the cleanup of partial files always be enforced, or made configurable (as in the plan)?
|
|
3. Are there plans to more fully test disk space, conflict, and interruption scenarios via integration or system tests?
|
|
4. Will negative/exception-path error reporting be enhanced to include more diagnostic and recovery information for the client?
|