feat: [#441] Optimize the HTTP testing process [#1] #704
Conversation
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces several new interfaces and types in the Changes
Suggested reviewers
Possibly related PRs
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #704 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 69.88% 69.75% -0.13%
==========================================
Files 192 194 +2
Lines 14929 15108 +179
==========================================
+ Hits 10433 10539 +106
- Misses 3933 3999 +66
- Partials 563 570 +7 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 10
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
contracts/testing/test_request.go (1)
3-10: Add godoc comments for the interface and methods.
The interface and its methods should be documented following Go conventions to improve code maintainability and IDE support.
Example documentation:
+// TestRequest provides a fluent interface for building and executing HTTP requests in tests.
type TestRequest interface {
+ // WithHeaders sets multiple headers at once. Returns the TestRequest for chaining.
WithHeaders(headers map[string]string) TestRequest
+ // WithHeader sets a single header. Returns the TestRequest for chaining.
WithHeader(key, value string) TestRequest
// ... (add docs for other methods)
}testing/test_case.go (1)
15-17: Add documentation for the Http method.
Consider adding a doc comment explaining the purpose and usage of this method, similar to the example in the PR description.
+// Http returns a new TestRequest instance for making HTTP requests in tests.
+// Example:
+// func TestIndex(t *testing.T) {
+// request := test.Http(t)
+// response := request.Get("/users/1")
+// response.AssertOK()
+// }
func (r *TestCase) Http(t *testing.T) contractstesting.TestRequest {contracts/testing/test_response.go (1)
4-28: Add documentation and consider enhancing status code coverage.
- Add godoc comments for the interface and methods to improve documentation.
- Consider adding assertions for other common status codes (e.g., 502 Bad Gateway).
- The
AssertNoContentmethod accepts variadic status parameters which seems unusual and could be confusing.
Add documentation like this:
+// TestResponse provides a fluent interface for testing HTTP responses.
type TestResponse interface {
+ // AssertStatus asserts that the response status code matches the expected status.
+ // Returns TestResponse for method chaining.
AssertStatus(status int) TestResponseAlso, consider simplifying AssertNoContent:
- AssertNoContent(status ...int) TestResponse
+ AssertNoContent() TestResponsetesting/test_request.go (1)
13-17: Add documentation to the TestRequest struct.
Consider adding documentation to describe the purpose and usage of the struct and its fields. This will improve code maintainability and help other developers understand the implementation better.
+// TestRequest facilitates HTTP request testing by managing headers and cookies
+// while maintaining a reference to the testing context.
type TestRequest struct {
+ // t holds the testing context for assertions
t *testing.T
+ // defaultHeaders stores the default HTTP headers for requests
defaultHeaders map[string]string
+ // defaultCookies stores the default cookies for requests
defaultCookies map[string]string
}go.mod (1)
Line range hint 7-45: Consider splitting unrelated dependency changes into separate PRs.
The changes to gofakeit and the MySQL driver appear unrelated to the PR's objective of optimizing HTTP testing. To maintain clear change boundaries and make potential rollbacks easier, consider:
- Moving these dependency changes to separate PRs
- Keeping this PR focused on HTTP testing optimization changes
testing/test_response.go (1)
143-143: Unnecessary logging in AssertHeader method
Line 143 logs the response headers using color.Errorln, which may clutter test outputs and is not typically necessary in assertion methods.
Consider removing this line to keep test outputs clean:
- color.Errorln(r.Response.Header)📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (3)
go.sumis excluded by!**/*.summocks/testing/TestRequest.gois excluded by!mocks/**mocks/testing/TestResponse.gois excluded by!mocks/**
📒 Files selected for processing (8)
- contracts/testing/test_request.go (1 hunks)
- contracts/testing/test_response.go (1 hunks)
- errors/list.go (1 hunks)
- go.mod (2 hunks)
- testing/service_provider.go (2 hunks)
- testing/test_case.go (1 hunks)
- testing/test_request.go (1 hunks)
- testing/test_response.go (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (14)
contracts/testing/test_request.go (2)
1-1: LGTM!
Package name follows Go conventions and appropriately reflects its testing functionality.
9-9: 🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider revising the Get method signature.
The variadic headers parameter might conflict with WithHeaders method and could lead to confusion about which headers take precedence.
Consider simplifying to:
-Get(uri string, headers ...map[string]string) (TestResponse, error)
+Get(uri string) (TestResponse, error)Let's verify if there are any existing implementations or tests using the variadic headers:
testing/service_provider.go (3)
6-6: LGTM!
The import follows the project's naming conventions and is properly scoped.
Line range hint 1-34: Implementation aligns well with PR objectives.
The changes effectively support the HTTP testing process optimization (#441) by adding the necessary route facade infrastructure. The implementation follows established patterns and includes proper error handling.
Let's verify the integration with the HTTP testing feature:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the integration and usage patterns:
Implementation is correctly integrated and follows established patterns
The verification confirms that:
- The route facade is properly integrated into the testing infrastructure
- It's used correctly in
TestRequestfor serving HTTP requests viaServeHTTP - Error handling for uninitialized facade is properly defined in
errors/list.go - The implementation aligns with the HTTP testing optimization goals (build(deps): bump the go-modules group with 1 update #441)
The changes are well-structured, necessary, and correctly implemented.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for test files using the new route facade
rg -l "TestRequest|TestResponse"
# Verify error definitions
rg "RouteFacadeNotSet"
Length of output: 639
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check how TestRequest/TestResponse are using the route facade
rg "routeFacade" -A 3 testing/
Length of output: 683
14-14: Verify thread-safety of the global route facade.
The global routeFacade variable follows the same pattern as artisanFacade. However, since this will be used in HTTP testing, we should verify its concurrent usage safety.
testing/test_case.go (2)
5-5: LGTM! Import changes are appropriate.
The new imports are necessary for the HTTP testing functionality and follow Go conventions.
Also applies to: 8-8
15-17: Verify NewTestRequest implementation and error handling.
The method calls NewTestRequest which isn't visible in this file. Let's verify its implementation and error handling.
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the error handling in the implementation.
NewTestRequest implementation is properly handled with appropriate error propagation
The implementation of NewTestRequest and its usage in Http method is correct and well-structured:
NewTestRequestinitializes a new request object with proper defaults (headers and cookies maps)- Error handling is implemented in the underlying HTTP methods (
Get,call) that return(TestResponse, error) - The struct is properly initialized with the testing context (
*testing.T) - The implementation follows the builder pattern with chainable methods for configuration
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check NewTestRequest implementation and related test files
# Look for NewTestRequest implementation
echo "Searching for NewTestRequest implementation..."
ast-grep --pattern 'func NewTestRequest($$$) $$$'
# Look for related test files
echo "Searching for related test files..."
fd -e go -e test.go . | xargs rg "Http.*testing.T.*TestRequest"
Length of output: 1653
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the TestRequest struct and its methods for error handling
echo "Checking TestRequest struct and methods..."
ast-grep --pattern 'type TestRequest struct {
$$$
}'
echo "Checking error handling in TestRequest methods..."
rg -A 5 "func \(.*TestRequest\)" testing/test_request.go
# Check if there are any error-related tests
echo "Checking error-related tests..."
rg "Error|err" testing/test_request.go
Length of output: 2870
contracts/testing/test_response.go (1)
1-3: LGTM! Clear and focused interface declaration.
The package and interface naming follows Go conventions and clearly indicates its purpose for HTTP response testing.
testing/test_request.go (3)
1-11: LGTM! Well-structured package and imports.
The package structure and imports are clean and well-organized, with appropriate aliasing for the contracts testing package.
19-25: LGTM! Well-implemented constructor.
The constructor follows good practices by returning an interface and properly initializing all fields.
52-54: LGTM! Clean GET method implementation.
The Get method is well-implemented with proper method forwarding to call().
go.mod (2)
45-45: Verify the mysql driver dependency change.
Moving github.com/go-sql-driver/mysql to indirect dependencies suggests it's no longer directly imported. Since this change appears unrelated to HTTP testing optimization:
- Please confirm that no direct imports of this package exist
- If this is an unrelated change, consider moving it to a separate PR
Let's verify there are no direct imports:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for direct mysql driver imports
# Search for direct imports of mysql driver
rg -l '_ "github.com/go-sql-driver/mysql"'
rg -l '"github.com/go-sql-driver/mysql"'7-7: Verify the impact of downgrading gofakeit.
The downgrade from github.com/brianvoe/gofakeit/v7 v7.1.1 to github.com/brianvoe/gofakeit/v6 v6.28.0 is a major version change that could introduce breaking changes. Since this PR focuses on HTTP testing optimization, please clarify:
- Why is this downgrade necessary?
- Have you verified that all existing test data generation still works correctly?
Let's check for potential breaking changes:
✅ Verification successful
Let me gather more information about the gofakeit usage and version history.
Based on the gathered information, I can now generate the final response:
The gofakeit downgrade appears to be safe but duplicated dependency needs cleanup
The usage of gofakeit is limited to basic faker methods (Name() and Email()) in test files, which are stable across v6 and v7 versions. However, the go.mod history shows a duplicate declaration of v7 that was removed along with the downgrade, suggesting this change might be a cleanup rather than a deliberate downgrade.
- The only usage is in
database/factory/factory_test.gowith basic faker methods - The methods being used (
Name(),Email()) are core features available in both v6 and v7 - The git history shows duplicate v7 declarations that were cleaned up
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for gofakeit usage that might be affected by the downgrade
# Look for all gofakeit imports and usage
rg -l "github.com/brianvoe/gofakeit"
# Look for specific v7 features that might break in v6
rg "gofakeit\." -A 3
Length of output: 677
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check imports to see exact version usage
rg -l "github.com/brianvoe/gofakeit/v7"
rg -l "github.com/brianvoe/gofakeit/v6"
# Check all gofakeit method calls to identify potential incompatibilities
rg "faker\." -A 2
# Look at git history for the dependency
git log -p -- go.mod | grep -A 5 -B 5 "github.com/brianvoe/gofakeit"
Length of output: 1606
errors/list.go (1)
15-15: LGTM! The error variable follows established patterns.
The new RouteFacadeNotSet error variable is well-placed among other facade-related errors and follows the consistent naming and message format used throughout the file.
Let's verify that this is the only instance of this error message in the codebase:
✅ Verification successful
No duplicate error messages found for route facade initialization
The verification confirms that the RouteFacadeNotSet error message is unique in the codebase, appearing only once in errors/list.go. This maintains consistency and prevents confusion from duplicate or similar error messages.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for any duplicate or similar route facade error messages
# Expect: Only one instance of this error message
rg -i "route facade.*not.*initialized"
Length of output: 118
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 13
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
mocks/testing/TestRequest.gois excluded by!mocks/**
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
contracts/testing/test_request.go(1 hunks)go.mod(2 hunks)testing/test_request.go(1 hunks)testing/test_response.go(1 hunks)testing/test_response_test.go(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- contracts/testing/test_request.go
- go.mod
🔇 Additional comments (6)
testing/test_response_test.go (3)
1-8: LGTM!
Package declaration and imports are well-organized and follow Go conventions.
59-65: LGTM!
The test is well-focused and correctly validates the missing cookie scenario.
67-71: LGTM!
The helper function is well-designed and consistently used across all tests.
testing/test_request.go (2)
59-63: Previous suggestion to add context support remains applicable
As previously noted, consider adding context support and timeout handling in the call method to allow for request cancellation and better control over request execution time.
65-67: Existing suggestion on header validation is still relevant
As previously suggested, consider adding validation for header keys and values to prevent invalid or malformed HTTP headers.
testing/test_response.go (1)
47-58: Potential inconsistency in AssertNoContent method
The AssertNoContent method checks for an empty content using r.content, which is set during initialization. If the response body changes elsewhere, this method may not reflect the latest state.
Ensure that r.content accurately represents the response body at the time of assertion. If the content can change, consider reading the body directly when needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 11
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
testing/test_response_test.go (2)
10-15: Consider adding more test cases for status code assertions.While the current test covers the happy path, consider adding test cases for:
- Common HTTP status codes (404, 500, etc.)
- Edge cases with invalid status codes
Example addition:
func TestAssertStatus(t *testing.T) { testCases := []struct { name string statusCode int }{ {"success", http.StatusOK}, {"not found", http.StatusNotFound}, {"server error", http.StatusInternalServerError}, } for _, tc := range testCases { t.Run(tc.name, func(t *testing.T) { resp := createTestResponse(tc.statusCode) r := NewTestResponse(t, resp) r.AssertStatus(tc.statusCode) }) } }
59-65: Consider adding edge cases for missing cookie test.While the current test is clear, consider adding cases where:
- The cookie exists but with an empty value
- Multiple cookies exist but not the target one
Example:
func TestAssertCookieMissing(t *testing.T) { t.Run("no cookies", func(t *testing.T) { resp := createTestResponse(http.StatusOK) r := NewTestResponse(t, resp) r.AssertCookieMissing("session_id") }) t.Run("other cookies exist", func(t *testing.T) { resp := createTestResponse(http.StatusOK) resp.Result().Header.Add("Set-Cookie", "other=value") r := NewTestResponse(t, resp) r.AssertCookieMissing("session_id") }) }testing/test_request.go (1)
16-20: Add documentation for the TestRequest struct and its fields.Consider adding documentation to describe the purpose of the struct and its fields. This will help other developers understand how to use this testing utility.
+// TestRequest facilitates HTTP request testing by managing headers, cookies, +// and test assertions. type TestRequest struct { + // t is the testing context used for assertions t *testing.T + // defaultHeaders stores headers to be included in every request defaultHeaders map[string]string + // defaultCookies stores cookies to be included in every request defaultCookies map[string]any }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
go.sumis excluded by!**/*.summocks/testing/TestRequest.gois excluded by!mocks/**
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
contracts/testing/test_request.go(1 hunks)database/factory/factory_test.go(1 hunks)go.mod(1 hunks)testing/test_request.go(1 hunks)testing/test_response.go(1 hunks)testing/test_response_test.go(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- database/factory/factory_test.go
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- contracts/testing/test_request.go
- go.mod
🔇 Additional comments (1)
testing/test_response_test.go (1)
1-8: LGTM! Package and imports are well-organized.
The package name matches the directory and all imports are from the standard library.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
testing/test_response.go(1 hunks)testing/test_response_test.go(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- testing/test_response.go
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
testing/test_response.go (1)
21-21: Remove unnecessary commented-out codeThe commented line
//content := recorder.Body.String()is not used and can be removed to keep the code clean and maintain readability.Apply this diff:
- //content := recorder.Body.String()
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
testing/test_request.go(1 hunks)testing/test_response.go(1 hunks)testing/test_response_test.go(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- testing/test_request.go
kkumar-gcc
dismissed stale reviews from coderabbitai[bot] and hwbrzzl
via
dd9a32e
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
testing/test_response.go (1)
30-133: Add documentation for HTTP status assertion methodsThe status assertion methods would benefit from documentation explaining their purpose and usage examples.
Consider adding documentation for each method, for example:
+// AssertOk asserts that the response has a 200 OK status code. func (r *TestResponseImpl) AssertOk() contractstesting.TestResponse { return r.AssertStatus(http.StatusOK) }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
go.mod(1 hunks)testing/test_response.go(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- go.mod
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
testing/test_response.go(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
testing/test_response.go (1)
43-54:
Initialize r.content before asserting it's empty
In the AssertNoContent method, you're asserting that r.content is empty, but r.content is never initialized by reading the response body. This may cause the assertion to always pass regardless of the actual response content.
Apply this diff to read and assign the response body to r.content:
func (r *TestResponseImpl) AssertNoContent(status ...int) contractstesting.TestResponse {
expectedStatus := http.StatusNoContent
if len(status) > 0 {
expectedStatus = status[0]
}
r.AssertStatus(expectedStatus)
+ bodyBytes, err := io.ReadAll(r.response.Body)
+ if err != nil {
+ assert.FailNow(r.t, fmt.Sprintf("Failed to read response body: %v", err))
+ }
+ r.content = string(bodyBytes)
+ // Close the response body to prevent resource leaks
+ err = r.response.Body.Close()
+ if err != nil {
+ assert.FailNow(r.t, fmt.Sprintf("Failed to close response body: %v", err))
+ }
assert.Empty(r.t, r.content)
return r
}Alternatively, consider adding a getContent() method to read and cache the response body for reuse across methods.
Likely invalid or redundant comment.
📑 Description
Usage Example:
RelatedTo goravel/goravel#441
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
TestRequestandTestResponseinterfaces for enhanced HTTP request and response testing.TestCasestruct for simplified HTTP request testing.Bug Fixes
RouteFacadeNotSetto handle uninitialized route facades.Chores
go.modfile.✅ Checks