feat: Optimize testing.http #788
Conversation
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant modifications to the Changes
Sequence DiagramsequenceDiagram
participant Client
participant TestRequest
participant Route
participant Response
Client->>TestRequest: Create Request
Client->>TestRequest: Bind(value)
TestRequest->>Route: Send HTTP Request
Route-->>TestRequest: Return Response
TestRequest->>Response: Unmarshal JSON
TestRequest-->>Client: Return TestResponse
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
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 #788 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 69.69% 69.65% -0.04%
==========================================
Files 215 215
Lines 18523 18545 +22
==========================================
+ Hits 12909 12917 +8
- Misses 4910 4916 +6
- Partials 704 712 +8 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (11)
contracts/testing/test_request.go (2)
9-16: Add validation or documentation for request body usage.The newly added HTTP methods do not specify how request bodies should be validated or handled (e.g.,
io.Readerusage). Consider clarifying usage expectations in doc comments or ensuring that all callers safely handle potential nil inputs.
24-24: Avoid potential header duplication.
WithHeadersmerges headers but might cause duplicates if the same key was already set. Consider clarifying or enforcing overwrites vs merges.testing/service_provider.go (1)
15-15: Ensure the global variable does not become a hidden dependency.A global
jsonvariable is introduced. If multiple tests or routines mutate it accidentally, it may cause hard-to-track test fragility.testing/test_request_test.go (6)
4-9: Avoid potential naming collisions in imports.The import alias
encodingjson "encoding/json"is more explicit than typical. Confirm it will not cause confusion in the broader codebase.
34-35: Consider a more descriptive variable name thanjson.Reusing
jsonas a package-level variable and also reassigning here could be confusing. Consider something more descriptive e.g.jsonHandler.
37-40: Initialize testRequest with a more descriptive constructor.Creating the struct directly is fine, but consider using
NewTestRequest(s.T())if that constructor is consistently used elsewhere to keep initialization uniform.
68-71: Group variable declarations with the same scope.Lines 69-71 define
mockDriverandmockSession. Consider grouping them or clarifying usage so that each variable’s purpose is clearer.
75-75: setup function naming.
setupis vague. Consider naming it for clarity, e.g.setupDriverFailureor a semantic name that explains the scenario.
123-123: Encapsulated call to set session.
request := s.testRequest.WithSession(...)followed bysetSession()is a straightforward approach. Consider verifying session state with additional assertions if needed.testing/test_request.go (2)
41-43: Document body usage.When
Postis called withbody io.Reader, confirm that large bodies or streaming scenarios are safely handled, e.g., no partial reads or concurrency issues.
49-51: Ensure safe usage for Delete with body.While some semantics allow a body in DELETE requests, some servers ignore it. The code is fine but clarify usage in doc comments.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
contracts/testing/test_request.go(1 hunks)mocks/testing/TestRequest.go(1 hunks)testing/assertable_json.go(0 hunks)testing/service_provider.go(2 hunks)testing/test_request.go(3 hunks)testing/test_request_test.go(5 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- testing/assertable_json.go
🔇 Additional comments (27)
contracts/testing/test_request.go (2)
17-17: Confirm thread safety and concurrency behavior for Bind.
The new Bind(value any) TestRequest method mutates the internal state (bind field). If code is executed concurrently, consider clarifying whether a single TestRequest instance is safe for concurrent calls.
19-20: Enforce or document authentication usage constraints.
The repositioned WithBasicAuth and WithContext methods add flexible integration points for auth and context passing. Ensure (or document) consistent usage patterns and validate any credentials or context data as needed.
testing/service_provider.go (1)
45-46: Verify JSON instance lifecycle.
json = app.GetJson() sets the global instance. Confirm the lifecycle and ensure that subsequent usage doesn’t rely on environment-specific configurations or produce race conditions in concurrent tests.
testing/test_request_test.go (13)
15-15: Mock usage validated.
Adding mocksroute "github.com/goravel/framework/mocks/route" ensures we can stub route calls in tests effectively. Looks good.
21-22: Test suite alignment.
The new fields testRequest and mockRoute are consistent with typical suite-based testing patterns, enhancing clarity and maintainability.
32-32: Check for concurrent test runs.
s.mockRoute = mocksroute.NewRoute(s.T()) is fine, but ensure that no concurrency issues arise if multiple tests or test suites manipulate shared route mocks.
44-45: Prevent potential side effects by nil assignments.
json = nil and routeFacade = nil ensure a clean teardown, but confirm that no other global references share these variables.
49-65: Thorough test coverage for JSON binding.
The TestBindAndCall method adequately tests the new Bind logic with JSON. Ensure coverage includes error scenarios (e.g. malformed JSON, empty body).
83-83: Short function style is good.
The anonymous function to simulate driver retrieval error is easy to read and clearly associates the mock with the test scenario.
91-91: Consistency in mocking session building.
Again, the short style is consistent with the approach in line 83. Good maintainability.
100-100: Check for concurrency issues.
The lines that mock session usage demonstrate multiple method calls on the same mock. Confirm tests are not run concurrently against the same mock instance.
118-119: Proper instantiation of new mock objects.
Each test block re-initializes mockDriver and mockSession, avoiding leftover state from previous tests. Good practice.
121-121: Clear test arrangement.
tc.setup() is easy to read. The library usage for .On() mocking is consistent.
159-159: Reuse testRequest.
Reusing s.testRequest for session-based tests is consistent, ensuring the same instance logic is tested. Looks good.
167-167: No side effects on an empty session.
TestSetSessionUsingWithoutSession ensures no calls to the session manager if no attributes are set. Great for preventing unintended side effects.
173-182: Minimalistic testJson struct is beneficial.
The Marshal and Unmarshal methods are direct pass-throughs to the stdlib. This is helpful for test override scenarios if needed (e.g., custom encoding).
testing/test_request.go (9)
21-21: Document concurrency assumptions for the new bind field.
Since bind any can be set then used in call, confirm that a single TestRequest is not used in parallel.
37-39: HTTP method handlers are consistent.
The Get method calls r.call(...); approach is coherent with the new pattern for each HTTP method.
45-47: Use consistent approach for Put.
Matches the Post structure. Looks acceptable.
53-55: Patch follows the same pattern.
No issues found.
57-59: Head usage is consistent.
No unusual code references.
61-63: Options usage.
Well-defined and consistent, calls call.
65-68: Bind method clarity.
Storing value any in r.bind is a simple approach. Just confirm that subsequent calls do not override or conflict.
153-163: Guard the response body read process.
Ensure the response body is always closed. If testResponse handles closing in Content(), confirm it’s consistently tested for potential read errors.
165-165: Return the testResponse last.
Returning testResponse after the optional unmarshal is good. No issues found.
mocks/testing/TestRequest.go (2)
27-45: Bind method mocking is consistent.
The method simply delegates to _m.Called(value). This allows flexible test scenarios.
47-74: Helper struct for Bind call chaining.
TestRequest_Bind_Call provides a clear mechanism for chaining .Run and .Return. This is properly aligned with typical testify/mock usage patterns.
📑 Description
Add
Bindmethod:Http(t).Bind(&user).Get("/")Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
TestRequestinterface with new HTTP methods for improved request handling.Bindmethod for binding response content to variables.ServiceProvider.TestRequestwith new expectations and methods.Bug Fixes
TestRequest.Tests
✅ Checks