🐛 fix(tests): fix DI container setup, mock signature, and update deps

[itisnotyourenv]

Pull Request

Description

Fixes two test failures introduced/exposed by the DI provider refactor in #79, and updates project dependencies.

Type of Change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Configuration change

Changes

Test Fixes

• tests/integration/conftest.py: Removed invalid worker_postgres_config argument from DBProvider() — it was being passed as Dishka's scope parameter, causing UnknownScopeError in all 9 integration tests. The worker-specific config is already passed via context={Config: worker_config}.
• tests/unit/presentation/bot/routers/test_commands.py: Added component positional parameter to mock container's get() method to match Dishka's AsyncContainer.get(dep_type, component) signature.

Dependency Updates

• Updated uv.lock with latest dependency versions.

Testing

• Tests pass locally with my changes (227 passed)
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

Code Quality

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• My changes generate no new warnings
• Pre-commit hooks pass
• Ruff linting passes (ruff check src/ tests/)
• Ruff formatting passes (ruff format src/ tests/ --check)

Related Issues

Follows up on #79

---

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[claude]

PR Review — 🐛 fix(tests): fix DI container setup, mock signature, and update deps

Summary

Focused, well-scoped bug fix. Both test failures are correctly diagnosed and fixed. The PR description is clear, the commit message follows the project's conventional-commit + emoji convention, and all checks reportedly pass (227 tests green). Overall: approve with one minor note.

---

Critical Issues

None.

---

Change-by-Change Analysis

1. tests/integration/conftest.py — Remove worker_postgres_config from DBProvider()

✅ Correct fix. DBProvider (a Dishka Provider subclass) takes scope as its only constructor argument. Passing worker_postgres_config (a Pydantic model) there was silently interpreted as scope, causing UnknownScopeError across all 9 integration tests. The worker config is already wired correctly via context={Config: worker_config, ...}, so the fix is minimal and correct.

2. tests/unit/.../test_commands.py — Add component to mock_get

✅ Correct fix. Dishka's AsyncContainer.get(dep_type, component) has a positional component parameter. The previous mock only accepted **kwargs, so the call site raised a TypeError. The fix adds component: object = None with a default, keeping the mock backward-compatible while matching the real signature.

Minor note: component is silently ignored inside mock_get. That's fine for current tests, but if future tests need component-scoped dependencies, the mock will need updating. Worth a small # component unused — this mock handles single-component cases only comment if the function grows.

3. uv.lock — Dependency updates

✅ Standard lockfile refresh. Notable bumps visible in the diff: aiofiles 24.1.0 → 25.1.0. The author states 227 tests pass, which is the practical signal that nothing broke.

---

Minor Suggestions (non-blocking)

Inconsistent URL splitting in conftest.py

Line 71 was correctly changed to rsplit("/", maxsplit=1)[-1], but line 152 still uses split("/")[-1]:

# line 71 (fixed) ✅
worker_db_name = worker_url.rsplit("/", maxsplit=1)[-1]

# line 152 (unchanged) ⚠️
worker_db_name = worker_db_url.split("/")[-1]

Both extract the DB name from a URL, so they should use the same approach. For typical postgresql+asyncpg://user:pass@host:port/dbname URLs without query strings this doesn't matter, but the inconsistency is a code smell. Consider aligning line 152 to use rsplit("/", maxsplit=1)[-1] as well.

Raw SQL CREATE DATABASE (pre-existing, not introduced here)

await conn.execute(text(f'CREATE DATABASE "{worker_db_name}"'))

worker_db_name is derived from the test config (not user input), so injection risk is essentially zero. Still, worth a brief comment noting that parameterized DDL isn't supported by PostgreSQL for CREATE DATABASE, so the f-string is intentional. This is pre-existing code and out of scope for this PR, just flagging for awareness.

---

Questions

None — the PR description covers the "why" clearly and the related PR (#79) gives sufficient context.

---

Overall Assessment

✅ Approve. Both fixes are minimal, correct, and well-motivated. The lockfile update is routine. The only actionable follow-up is aligning split → rsplit at line 152, which can be done in this PR or as a trivial follow-up.