feat: add CompositionClient to cli and bump SDK to v4.38.0 by ben-kalmus · Pull Request #215 · algolia/cli

ben-kalmus · 2026-05-08T13:25:02Z

Summary

Adds a new compositions command group to the Algolia CLI covering the full management lifecycle for Algolia Compositions (https://www.algolia.com/doc/rest-api/composition/).
This also bumps the Algolia Go SDK from v4.35.0 to v4.38.0 to pick up the composition package.

Commands added

Composition management:

algolia compositions list
algolia compositions get <composition-id>
algolia compositions upsert <composition-id> --file body.json
algolia compositions delete <composition-id>
algolia compositions search <composition-id> <query>

Composition rule management:

algolia compositions rules list <composition-id>
algolia compositions rules get <composition-id> <rule-id>
algolia compositions rules upsert <composition-id> <rule-id> --file rule.json
algolia compositions rules delete <composition-id> <rule-id>

Design notes

All write operations (upsert, delete) always wait for the task to reach published status before returning. There is no --wait flag unlike indices command group.
Delete commands prompt for confirmation unless --confirm/-y is passed.
ACLs are enforced: read commands require search, write commands require editSettings.

Changes

go.mod / go.sum: Bump algoliasearch-client-go/v4 to v4.38.0
pkg/cmdutil/factory.go: Add CompositionClient field
pkg/cmd/factory/default.go: Implement compositionClient() factory function
pkg/cmd/root/root.go: Register NewCompositionsCmd
pkg/cmd/compositions/: New command group

Tests

Each command has a unit test file covering:

Happy path with exact JSON output assertion
Missing required argument(s) - verifies descriptive error message
For upsert commands: missing --file flag, invalid JSON input
For delete commands: confirmation required

End to end test script:
e2e/testscripts/compositions/compositions.txtar

codacy-production · 2026-05-08T13:26:16Z

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

🟢 Metrics 95 complexity · 153 duplication

Metric Results

Complexity 95

Duplication 153

View in Codacy

_{TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.}

NatanTechofNY

🤖 AI-Generated Code Review by Claude Code

Overview

Large new feature: 29 files, ~1870 additions adding a full compositions command group (list, get, upsert, delete, search + rules sub-group) with SDK bump to v4.38.0. Well-structured and follows repo conventions closely, with strong unit test coverage. A few consistency gaps versus existing delete commands and one blocking issue (E2E tests won't actually run).

✅ Strengths

Follows the exact repo pattern: New...Cmd, RunE, cmdutil.PrintFlags, validators.ExactArgsWithMsg, heredoc examples
Thorough unit tests for every command including timeout, API error, and confirmation cases
Wait-always design is cleaner UX for compositions than opt-in --wait
ACL annotations correct: read = search, write = editSettings

📋 Summary of Findings

🚨 HIGH: E2E test script never runs — TestCompositions missing in e2e/e2e_test.go
⚠️ MEDIUM (×4): CanPrompt() guard missing; ErrCancel on decline; prompt error wrapping inconsistency; upsert prints taskID after wait
💡 LOW: First poll waits full interval before first GetTask call

Generated by Claude Code — automated review focusing on security, performance, and best practices

NatanTechofNY · 2026-05-13T14:13:23Z

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+env COMP_ID=test-comp-e2e


🚨 HIGH: E2E test script is never executed

This txtar file exists, but e2e/e2e_test.go has no TestCompositions function. The runner only picks up directories explicitly registered via runTestsInDir. The file currently registers 8 tests (TestVersion, TestIndices, TestSettings, TestObjects, TestSynonyms, TestRules, TestSearch, TestAgentReady) — compositions is absent.

// Add to e2e/e2e_test.go alongside the other Test* functions: func TestCompositions(t *testing.T) { runTestsInDir(t, "testscripts/compositions") }

Without this, go test ./e2e -tags=e2e silently skips all compositions txtar scripts.

Fixed in 1b105f3. Added TestCompositions to e2e/e2e_test.go so the txtar script runs.

NatanTechofNY · 2026-05-13T14:13:23Z

+			opts.CompositionID = args[0]
+
+			if !opts.DoConfirm {
+				var confirmed bool


⚠️ MEDIUM: Missing CanPrompt() guard before interactive prompt

Every other delete command in the repo (indices/delete, rules/delete, synonyms/delete, etc.) checks opts.IO.CanPrompt() before attempting an interactive prompt, and returns a clear error in non-TTY contexts:

// from pkg/cmd/rules/delete/delete.go (existing pattern) if !confirm { if !opts.IO.CanPrompt() { return cmdutil.FlagErrorf("--confirm required when non-interactive shell is detected") } opts.DoConfirm = true }

Without this check, running in CI or a script without --confirm will call prompt.Confirm on a non-TTY and fail with a cryptic survey error. Please apply the same guard here (and in compositions/rules/delete).

Added CanPrompt() guard to both compositions/delete and compositions/rules/delete, returning cmdutil.FlagErrorf in non-interactive contexts to match the repo pattern.

NatanTechofNY · 2026-05-13T14:13:23Z

+				}
+				if !confirmed {
+					return cmdutil.ErrCancel
+				}


⚠️ MEDIUM: ErrCancel on decline causes exit code 2 — inconsistent with repo convention

Returning cmdutil.ErrCancel here triggers exit code 2 via root.go's IsUserCancellation mapping. Every other delete command in the repo (indices, rules, synonyms, objects, dictionary, apikeys) returns nil (exit 0) when a user declines — the operation just doesn't happen.

// Change to: if !confirmed { return nil }

Scripts checking $? after a declined algolia compositions delete will see an unexpected failure otherwise.

Changed both delete commands to return nil on decline instead of cmdutil.ErrCancel, matching the convention in indices/delete, rules/delete, etc.

NatanTechofNY · 2026-05-13T14:13:23Z

+				)
+				if err != nil {
+					return err
+				}


⚠️ MEDIUM: Prompt error returned unwrapped — inconsistent with sibling command

In compositions/delete/delete.go, the equivalent block wraps the error:
return fmt.Errorf("failed to prompt: %w", err)

Here it's returned bare: return err. These are adjacent files in the same PR — pick one style and apply it consistently.

// Change to match compositions/delete: return fmt.Errorf("failed to prompt: %w", err)

Wrapped the prompt error with fmt.Errorf("failed to prompt: %w", err) to match the sibling compositions/delete style.

NatanTechofNY · 2026-05-13T14:13:23Z

+	}
+
+	return p.Print(opts.IO, res)
+}


⚠️ MEDIUM: Upsert prints task response after waiting — atypical pattern

After WaitForTask succeeds, p.Print(opts.IO, res) prints the original mutation API response (e.g. {"taskID": 42}). Across the rest of the repo, mutate+wait commands either print a structured summary map (objects/update, rules/import) or a TTY success message (synonyms/save, settings/set) — raw task responses are not the post-wait output pattern.

Users may be confused seeing a taskID when they expected confirmation of the composition state. Consider printing a brief success message (TTY) or a summary struct (non-TTY), or at minimum document in Short/Long that the output is the async task result. Same applies to rule upsert and both delete commands.

Added a TTY-only success message after WaitForTask for all four mutate commands (upsert + delete, composition + rule). The structured JSON (taskID) is still emitted via PrintFlags for scripting, but TTY users now get explicit confirmation that the operation completed.

NatanTechofNY · 2026-05-13T14:13:23Z

+				return err
+			}
+			if resp.Status == algoliaComposition.TASK_STATUS_PUBLISHED {
+				io.StopProgressIndicator()


💡 LOW: First GetTask poll waits a full PollInterval (2s) before firing

time.NewTicker does not fire immediately — the first tick arrives after one pollInterval. For tasks that complete quickly, this adds up to 2s of unnecessary latency.

Consider issuing one immediate GetTask call before entering the ticker loop:

// Immediate first check before polling loop resp, err := client.GetTask(client.NewApiGetTaskRequest(compositionID, taskID)) if err != nil { ... } if resp.Status == algoliaComposition.TASK_STATUS_PUBLISHED { io.StopProgressIndicator() return nil } // then start the ticker loop

Added an immediate GetTask call before entering the ticker loop in WaitForTask. Quick-completing tasks now return without waiting a full pollInterval. Existing tests still pass (mock response order is preserved).

- Register TestCompositions in e2e_test.go so the txtar script runs - Guard interactive prompts with CanPrompt() in both delete commands - Return nil (not ErrCancel) when user declines confirmation, matching repo convention - Wrap prompt error in rules/delete to match sibling style - Print TTY success message after WaitForTask in all four mutate commands - Issue an immediate GetTask in WaitForTask so quick tasks skip the first poll wait Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

NatanTechofNY

🤖 AI Follow-up Review by Claude Code (commit 2ba948b)

All 6 findings from the previous round have been addressed — thank you for the fast turnaround.

✅ Previous issues resolved

Issue	Status
🚨 E2E test never ran — missing `TestCompositions` in `e2e/e2e_test.go`	✅ Fixed
⚠️ Missing `CanPrompt()` guard before interactive prompt in both delete commands	✅ Fixed
⚠️ `ErrCancel` on decline → exit code 2 (inconsistent with rest of repo)	✅ Fixed — now returns `nil`
⚠️ Prompt error unwrapped in `rules/delete`	✅ Fixed — now wrapped with `fmt.Errorf("failed to prompt: %w")`
⚠️ Upsert/delete printed raw task response with no UX signal	✅ Fixed — TTY success message added
💡 First `GetTask` poll wasted a full `PollInterval`	✅ Fixed — immediate first check added before ticker loop

💡 Minor nit (non-blocking)

On TTY, mutate commands (upsert, rules upsert, delete, rules delete) currently print both a success line and the JSON task response:

✓ Upserted composition my-comp
{"taskID":42}

The success message is a nice touch, but the JSON that follows (from p.Print(opts.IO, res)) makes the TTY output a little noisy. Other async commands in the repo (e.g. synonyms/save) print only the success message on TTY and return nil. This is a style preference — either keeping both (useful for piping) or suppressing the JSON on TTY would be reasonable. Up to you.

Approved. Clean implementation, good test coverage, and all review feedback addressed. 🎉

Generated by Claude Code — automated review

ben-kalmus force-pushed the feat/compositions branch from 5e25461 to 9c9f982 Compare May 8, 2026 13:33

ben-kalmus marked this pull request as ready for review May 8, 2026 13:34

ben-kalmus force-pushed the feat/compositions branch 2 times, most recently from 34d611e to 44670b1 Compare May 8, 2026 16:02

feat: add CompositionClient to cli and bump SDK to v4.38.0

1b105f3

ben-kalmus force-pushed the feat/compositions branch from 44670b1 to 1b105f3 Compare May 13, 2026 12:45

ben-kalmus requested review from LorrisSaintGenez and dylantientcheu and removed request for dylantientcheu May 13, 2026 12:59

NatanTechofNY reviewed May 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

NatanTechofNY approved these changes May 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

ben-kalmus merged commit 29a9b64 into algolia:main May 13, 2026
3 checks passed

Conversation

ben-kalmus commented May 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Commands added

Composition management:

Composition rule management:

Design notes

Changes

Tests

Uh oh!

codacy-production Bot commented May 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Up to standards ✅

Uh oh!

NatanTechofNY left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Overview

✅ Strengths

📋 Summary of Findings

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

NatanTechofNY left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

✅ Previous issues resolved

💡 Minor nit (non-blocking)

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

ben-kalmus commented May 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codacy-production Bot commented May 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading