fix: resolve Memory Summary showing no data in Hardware Information (… by amarnath-ac · Pull Request #821 · device-management-toolkit/console

amarnath-ac · 2026-03-04T04:47:15Z

Enhanced parseCIMResponse to handle typed slices using reflection.
Added test for parseCIMResponse function achieving 100% coverage.

…816) Enhanced parseCIMResponse to handle typed slices using reflection. Added test for parseCIMResponse function achieving 100% coverage. Signed-off-by: C, Amarnath <amarnath.c@intel.com> Signed-off-by: S, Devipriya <devipriya.s@intel.com>

codecov · 2026-03-04T04:51:20Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 39.76%. Comparing base (ceaa99c) to head (3c0a659).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #821   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   39.76%   39.76%           
=======================================
  Files         114      114           
  Lines       10768    10768           
=======================================
  Hits         4282     4282           
  Misses       6087     6087           
  Partials      399      399

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

madhavilosetty-intel · 2026-03-04T16:58:34Z

@amarnath-ac Since we know the type of data which is []physical.PhysicalMemory, it's not necessary to use reflect. Reflect is generally used when the type is truly unknown at compile time. Instead, convert the typed slice to []interface{} at the source (in createMapInterfaceForHWInfo), which is consistent with how the other CIM types are handled. This way parseCIMResponse doesn't need to change at all.

internal\usecase\devices\wsman\message.go: line number 534

"responses": interfaceSlice(hwResults.PhysicalMemoryResult.Body.PullResponse.MemoryItems),

Add the following function to the same file

func interfaceSlice(items []physical.PhysicalMemory) []interface{} {
    result := make([]interface{}, len(items))
    for i, item := range items {
      result[i] = item
    }

	return result
}

I have tested this fix on AMT 19 and Memory Summary loads correctly. Please verify on your end as well.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Fixes the Hardware Information “Memory Summary shows no data” regression by making parseCIMResponse correctly handle responses values that come back as typed slices (e.g., []physical.PhysicalMemory) rather than only []interface{}.

Changes:

Update parseCIMResponse to convert typed slices in info["responses"] into []interface{} via reflection.
Add a focused private-unit test suite for parseCIMResponse, covering nil/invalid inputs and multiple responses/status shapes.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
`internal/usecase/devices/info.go`	Converts typed-slice `responses` values to `[]interface{}` so memory items populate correctly.
`internal/usecase/devices/info_private_test.go`	Adds comprehensive unit tests for `parseCIMResponse` covering typed slice handling and edge cases.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

internal/usecase/devices/info.go

amarnath-ac · 2026-03-05T04:08:47Z

@amarnath-ac Since we know the type of data which is []physical.PhysicalMemory, it's not necessary to use reflect. Reflect is generally used when the type is truly unknown at compile time. Instead, convert the typed slice to []interface{} at the source (in createMapInterfaceForHWInfo), which is consistent with how the other CIM types are handled. This way parseCIMResponse doesn't need to change at all.

internal\usecase\devices\wsman\message.go: line number 534

"responses": interfaceSlice(hwResults.PhysicalMemoryResult.Body.PullResponse.MemoryItems),

Add the following function to the same file
func interfaceSlice(items []physical.PhysicalMemory) []interface{} {
    result := make([]interface{}, len(items))
    for i, item := range items {
      result[i] = item
    }

	return result
}
I have tested this fix on AMT 19 and Memory Summary loads correctly. Please verify on your end as well.

Thanks for feedback, will update as suggested.

Convert PhysicalMemory slice to interface slice at source.

amarnath-ac · 2026-03-05T11:07:36Z

@amarnath-ac Since we know the type of data which is []physical.PhysicalMemory, it's not necessary to use reflect. Reflect is generally used when the type is truly unknown at compile time. Instead, convert the typed slice to []interface{} at the source (in createMapInterfaceForHWInfo), which is consistent with how the other CIM types are handled. This way parseCIMResponse doesn't need to change at all.
internal\usecase\devices\wsman\message.go: line number 534
"responses": interfaceSlice(hwResults.PhysicalMemoryResult.Body.PullResponse.MemoryItems),
Add the following function to the same file
func interfaceSlice(items []physical.PhysicalMemory) []interface{} {
    result := make([]interface{}, len(items))
    for i, item := range items {
      result[i] = item
    }

	return result
}
I have tested this fix on AMT 19 and Memory Summary loads correctly. Please verify on your end as well.
Thanks for feedback, will update as suggested.

@madhavilosetty-intel , Updated code

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2026-03-05T16:08:26Z

internal/usecase/devices/wsman/message.go

+// interfaceSlice converts []physical.PhysicalMemory to []interface{} for consistent handling.
+func interfaceSlice(items []physical.PhysicalMemory) []interface{} {
+	if items == nil {
+		return []interface{}{}
+	}
+
+	result := make([]interface{}, len(items))
+
+	for i := range items {
+		result[i] = items[i]
+	}
+
+	return result


interfaceSlice is named as if it were a generic helper, but it only accepts []physical.PhysicalMemory. Consider renaming it to reflect the specific type/purpose (or making it generic if that’s the intent) to avoid confusion for future callers.

Copilot · 2026-03-05T16:08:26Z

internal/usecase/devices/wsman/message_test.go

+func TestInterfaceSlice(t *testing.T) {
+	t.Parallel()
+
+	tests := []struct {
+		name     string
+		input    []physical.PhysicalMemory
+		expected []interface{}
+	}{
+		{
+			name:     "empty slice",
+			input:    []physical.PhysicalMemory{},
+			expected: []interface{}{},
+		},
+		{
+			name: "single item",
+			input: []physical.PhysicalMemory{
+				{
+					Capacity:     17179869184, // 16 GB
+					Manufacturer: "Kingston",
+					PartNumber:   "9905700-101.A00G",
+				},
+			},
+			expected: []interface{}{
+				physical.PhysicalMemory{
+					Capacity:     17179869184,
+					Manufacturer: "Kingston",
+					PartNumber:   "9905700-101.A00G",
+				},
+			},
+		},
+		{
+			name: "multiple items",
+			input: []physical.PhysicalMemory{
+				{
+					Capacity:     8589934592, // 8 GB
+					Manufacturer: "Samsung",
+					PartNumber:   "M471A1K43CB1-CRC",
+				},
+				{
+					Capacity:     8589934592, // 8 GB
+					Manufacturer: "Samsung",
+					PartNumber:   "M471A1K43CB1-CRC",
+				},
+			},
+			expected: []interface{}{
+				physical.PhysicalMemory{
+					Capacity:     8589934592,
+					Manufacturer: "Samsung",
+					PartNumber:   "M471A1K43CB1-CRC",
+				},
+				physical.PhysicalMemory{
+					Capacity:     8589934592,
+					Manufacturer: "Samsung",
+					PartNumber:   "M471A1K43CB1-CRC",
+				},
+			},
+		},
+		{
+			name:     "nil slice",
+			input:    nil,
+			expected: []interface{}{},
+		},
+	}
+
+	for _, tc := range tests {
+		tc := tc
+		t.Run(tc.name, func(t *testing.T) {
+			t.Parallel()
+
+			result := interfaceSlice(tc.input)
+			require.Equal(t, tc.expected, result)


PR description mentions updating/testing parseCIMResponse (and using reflection for typed slices), but this change instead introduces interfaceSlice in wsman/message.go and tests that helper. Please update the PR description (or include the missing parseCIMResponse changes/tests) so the intent and scope match what’s actually being merged.

sudhir-intc approved these changes Mar 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

amarnath-ac requested a review from DevipriyaS17 March 4, 2026 06:24

amarnath-ac marked this pull request as ready for review March 4, 2026 08:35

amarnath-ac requested review from madhavilosetty-intel and rsdmike March 4, 2026 08:36

madhavilosetty-intel requested a review from Copilot March 4, 2026 17:03

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of madhavilosetty-intel March 4, 2026 17:04 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

internal/usecase/devices/info.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

fix: replace reflection with source conversion in memory summary

3c0a659

Convert PhysicalMemory slice to interface slice at source.

madhavilosetty-intel requested a review from Copilot March 5, 2026 16:04

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of madhavilosetty-intel March 5, 2026 16:05 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Mar 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix: resolve Memory Summary showing no data in Hardware Information (…#821

fix: resolve Memory Summary showing no data in Hardware Information (…#821
amarnath-ac wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
mem_summary_no_data

amarnath-ac commented Mar 4, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

madhavilosetty-intel commented Mar 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

amarnath-ac commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

amarnath-ac commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Conversation

amarnath-ac commented Mar 4, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Mar 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

madhavilosetty-intel commented Mar 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

amarnath-ac commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

amarnath-ac commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Mar 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

codecov bot commented Mar 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading