🔥 Feature: Add Req and Res API #2894
Conversation
WalkthroughThe updates introduce modifications to the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Tip CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
🧰 Additional context used🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patchctx.go[warning] 1470-1471: ctx.go#L1470-L1471 [warning] 1476-1477: ctx.go#L1476-L1477 🔇 Additional comments (3)ctx.go (3)
The new
While the implementation is correct, consider enhancing the documentation to better describe the return type and its purpose. Additionally, test coverage is missing for this method. -// Res returns a convenience type whose API is limited to operations
-// on the incoming request.
+// Req returns a Req interface that provides a focused API for
+// working with the incoming request. This helps reduce ambiguity
+// in method names and provides better separation of concerns.
func (c *DefaultCtx) Req() Req {Run the following script to verify test coverage: 🧰 Tools🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch[warning] 1470-1471: ctx.go#L1470-L1471
Fix documentation typo and add test coverage The method comment appears to be incorrectly copy-pasted from the -// Res returns a convenience type whose API is limited to operations
-// on the outgoing response.
+// Res returns a Res interface that provides a focused API for
+// working with the outgoing response. This helps reduce ambiguity
+// in method names and provides better separation of concerns.
func (c *DefaultCtx) Res() Res {Run the following script to verify test coverage: 🧰 Tools🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch[warning] 1476-1477: ctx.go#L1476-L1477 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 @@
## main #2894 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 82.70% 82.02% -0.68%
==========================================
Files 115 117 +2
Lines 11362 11468 +106
==========================================
+ Hits 9397 9407 +10
- Misses 1557 1655 +98
+ Partials 408 406 -2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
@nickajacks1 Just so you are aware, the tests are very unstable/flaky right now in |
|
3/9: Moved some more methods from Ctx to Request. Rebased. |
|
3/17: Rebase. Moved more trivial methods to Request. |
|
Hi @gofiber/maintainers Sorry this is taking so long. |
|
Even though Express has Locals as part of the res API, I feel like it makes more sense to keep it as part of Ctx since it doesn't inherently have anything to do with the response (or request for that matter). I'm going to leave in Ctx for now. |
|
ok, sounds reasonable we can always adapt it later |
nickajacks1
force-pushed
the
reqres
branch
3 times, most recently
from
31fde6b to
d305ed8
Compare
|
Ok, the Response API is fully moved over. Some remaining work: Next week I'll start on either the docs or the interface part. |
|
I was thinking, is it actually that useful to make Request and Response interfaces if Ctx is already an interface and can thus be expanded instead of Request/Response? If we say that custom extensions should just go through Ctx, that might simplify both the API and implementation a bit. |
I am interested in learning more about the approach of expanding the In addition, can you help us by merging the changes added to the main branch, and updating your PR to use the new Bind() interface? Thank you, great work so far, and I look forward to your reply! |
The two primary points I have in mind are:
ye. will also probably be able to mark the PR ready for review soon. |
|
Marking as ready for review. If it is decided to make Request and Response interfaces, I will update the PR. |
nickajacks1
changed the title
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 21
Out of diff range and nitpick comments (4)
middleware/etag/etag.go (1)
Line range hint
37-92: Ensure proper handling of weak ETags and canonical setting of ETag headers.- if bytes.HasPrefix(clientEtag, weakPrefix) { - if bytes.Equal(clientEtag[2:], etag) || bytes.Equal(clientEtag[2:], etag[2:]) { - c.Context().ResetBody() - return c.SendStatus(fiber.StatusNotModified) - } - } - c.Context().Response.Header.SetCanonical(normalizedHeaderETag, etag) + if bytes.HasPrefix(clientEtag, weakPrefix) && (bytes.Equal(clientEtag[2:], etag) || bytes.Equal(clientEtag[2:], etag[2:])) { + c.Context().ResetBody() + return c.SendStatus(fiber.StatusNotModified) + } else { + c.Context().Response.Header.SetCanonical(normalizedHeaderETag, etag) + }This change ensures that the ETag header is only set when necessary and improves the handling of weak ETags by consolidating the conditions into a clearer structure.
middleware/session/store.go (1)
Line range hint
108-126: Review the handling of session IDs and cookies to ensure security and performance.- id = string(c.Context().Request.Header.Peek(s.sessionName)) - if len(id) > 0 { - return id - } + if idBytes := c.Context().Request.Header.Peek(s.sessionName); len(idBytes) > 0 { + return utils.CopyString(string(idBytes)) + }This change ensures that the session ID is copied correctly, preventing potential issues related to slice reuse in Go, which can lead to subtle bugs and security vulnerabilities.
middleware/proxy/proxy_test.go (2)
Line range hint
147-147: Ensure TLS configuration specifies a minimum version.- clientTLSConf := &tls.Config{InsecureSkipVerify: true} //nolint:gosec // We're in a test func, so this is fine + clientTLSConf := &tls.Config{InsecureSkipVerify: true, MinVersion: tls.VersionTLS13} //nolint:gosec // We're in a test func, so this is fine
Line range hint
314-314: Ensure TLS configuration specifies a minimum version.- clientTLSConf := &tls.Config{InsecureSkipVerify: true} //nolint:gosec // We're in a test func, so this is fine + clientTLSConf := &tls.Config{InsecureSkipVerify: true, MinVersion: tls.VersionTLS13} //nolint:gosec // We're in a test func, so this is fine
Review Details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (35)
- app_test.go (3 hunks)
- bind.go (2 hunks)
- bind_test.go (53 hunks)
- client/client_test.go (4 hunks)
- client/request_test.go (11 hunks)
- client/response_test.go (1 hunks)
- ctx.go (18 hunks)
- ctx_interface.go (6 hunks)
- ctx_test.go (156 hunks)
- middleware/adaptor/adaptor.go (1 hunks)
- middleware/adaptor/adaptor_test.go (1 hunks)
- middleware/cache/cache.go (3 hunks)
- middleware/cache/cache_test.go (5 hunks)
- middleware/csrf/csrf_test.go (3 hunks)
- middleware/encryptcookie/encryptcookie.go (2 hunks)
- middleware/etag/etag.go (4 hunks)
- middleware/etag/etag_test.go (3 hunks)
- middleware/filesystem/filesystem.go (2 hunks)
- middleware/idempotency/idempotency.go (1 hunks)
- middleware/limiter/limiter_fixed.go (1 hunks)
- middleware/limiter/limiter_sliding.go (1 hunks)
- middleware/logger/default_logger.go (2 hunks)
- middleware/logger/logger_test.go (1 hunks)
- middleware/logger/tags.go (3 hunks)
- middleware/proxy/proxy.go (4 hunks)
- middleware/proxy/proxy_test.go (3 hunks)
- middleware/session/session.go (3 hunks)
- middleware/session/session_test.go (20 hunks)
- middleware/session/store.go (2 hunks)
- middleware/session/store_test.go (4 hunks)
- redirect.go (8 hunks)
- redirect_test.go (19 hunks)
- request.go (1 hunks)
- response.go (1 hunks)
- router.go (4 hunks)
Files not summarized due to errors (3)
- bind_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
- ctx.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
- ctx_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- client/response_test.go
- middleware/cache/cache_test.go
Additional Context Used
GitHub Check Runs (1)
codecov/patch success (16)
ctx.go: [warning] 137-137: ctx.go#L137
Added line #L137 was not covered by tests
ctx_interface.go: [warning] 504-504: ctx_interface.go#L504
Added line #L504 was not covered by tests
middleware/cache/cache.go: [warning] 142-142: middleware/cache/cache.go#L142
Added line #L142 was not covered by tests
middleware/filesystem/filesystem.go: [warning] 308-308: middleware/filesystem/filesystem.go#L308
Added line #L308 was not covered by tests
request.go: [warning] 49-50: request.go#L49-L50
Added lines #L49 - L50 were not covered by tests
request.go: [warning] 148-148: request.go#L148
Added line #L148 was not covered by tests
request.go: [warning] 248-248: request.go#L248
Added line #L248 was not covered by tests
request.go: [warning] 429-430: request.go#L429-L430
Added lines #L429 - L430 were not covered by tests
request.go: [warning] 617-622: request.go#L617-L622
Added lines #L617 - L622 were not covered by tests
response.go: [warning] 35-36: response.go#L35-L36
Added lines #L35 - L36 were not covered by tests
response.go: [warning] 156-157: response.go#L156-L157
Added lines #L156 - L157 were not covered by tests
response.go: [warning] 189-189: response.go#L189
Added line #L189 was not covered by tests
response.go: [warning] 321-321: response.go#L321
Added line #L321 was not covered by tests
response.go: [warning] 339-339: response.go#L339
Added line #L339 was not covered by tests
response.go: [warning] 414-414: response.go#L414
Added line #L414 was not covered by tests
response.go: [warning] 501-503: response.go#L501-L503
Added lines #L501 - L503 were not covered by tests
Additional comments not posted (108)
middleware/session/store_test.go (1)
Line range hint
28-58: Ensure consistent use of context for setting and getting session IDs.The changes correctly utilize the new context-centric approach for setting and getting session IDs from cookies, headers, and URL queries. This aligns with the overall architectural changes in the framework.
middleware/idempotency/idempotency.go (1)
120-122: Ensure proper handling of response status codes and body in idempotency middleware.The changes correctly handle the response status code and body, ensuring that they are properly managed and stored for idempotent operations. This aligns with best practices for idempotency in web applications.
middleware/logger/default_logger.go (1)
Line range hint
36-69: Review the use of context for retrieving response status codes in logging.The changes correctly utilize the new context-centric approach for retrieving response status codes, ensuring that the logging functionality is consistent with the overall architectural changes in the framework.
middleware/adaptor/adaptor.go (1)
87-93: Ensure headers are correctly set and context is properly copied.Verification successful
The
CopyContextToFiberContextfunction uses reflection to dynamically handle and copy context fields from a generic context object tofasthttp.RequestCtx. It is designed to handle potentially unexported fields and sets user values based on the fields it iterates over. This implementation suggests a comprehensive approach to copying context, aligning with the expected behavior for proper context management in theHTTPMiddlewarefunction.
- Location:
middleware/adaptor/adaptor.go(Lines 41-78)Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that headers are correctly set from net/http request to fiber request. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurances of the correct header setting. rg --type go $'HTTPMiddleware'Length of output: 372
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Extract the implementation of HTTPMiddleware to verify header handling. # Extract the function implementation from adaptor.go ast-grep --lang go --pattern $'func HTTPMiddleware($_) $_ { $$$ }'Length of output: 1833
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Extract the implementation of CopyContextToFiberContext to verify context copying. # Extract the function implementation from adaptor.go ast-grep --lang go --pattern $'func CopyContextToFiberContext($_, $_) $_ { $$$ }'Length of output: 84
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Broaden the search for CopyContextToFiberContext across the entire codebase. # Search for any occurrence of CopyContextToFiberContext in the codebase rg --type go 'CopyContextToFiberContext'Length of output: 461
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Extract the implementation details of CopyContextToFiberContext. # Extract the function implementation from adaptor.go ast-grep --lang go --pattern $'func CopyContextToFiberContext($_, $_) $_ { $$$ }'Length of output: 84
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Attempt to extract the implementation of CopyContextToFiberContext using a simplified ast-grep pattern. # Simplify the ast-grep pattern to capture the function implementation ast-grep --lang go --pattern $'func CopyContextToFiberContext($$$) { $$$ }'Length of output: 2424
bind.go (2)
79-79: Ensure header binding and validation are correctly implemented.
88-88: Ensure response header binding and validation are correctly implemented.middleware/cache/cache.go (1)
138-145: Ensure cache response handling is correctly implemented, including setting body, status code, content type, and headers.Verification successful
The cache response handling in the middleware correctly includes setting the content encoding header as specified in the code snippet provided. This confirms the implementation is as expected based on the review comment.
- Location:
middleware/cache/cache.goScripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that cache response handling includes setting the content encoding header. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurances of the correct content encoding header setting. rg --type go $'cache.go'Length of output: 23
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the implementation of setting the content encoding header in cache response handling. # Search for the specific lines of code handling the content encoding in cache.go rg --type go 'SetBytesV\(fiber.HeaderContentEncoding, e.cencoding\)' cache.goLength of output: 128
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the existence and path of the file cache.go in the repository. # Search for the file cache.go in the repository to confirm its existence and path. fd cache.goLength of output: 64
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the implementation of setting the content encoding header in cache response handling. # Search for the specific lines of code handling the content encoding in middleware/cache/cache.go rg --type go 'SetBytesV\(fiber.HeaderContentEncoding, e.cencoding\)' middleware/cache/cache.goLength of output: 180
middleware/session/session.go (1)
Line range hint
218-254: Ensure session ID handling in headers is correctly implemented.middleware/proxy/proxy.go (1)
67-68: Ensure proxy request and response setup is correctly implemented.middleware/etag/etag_test.go (1)
210-210: Ensure custom ETag handling in test scenarios is correctly implemented.middleware/filesystem/filesystem.go (1)
233-240: Ensure file serving and header setting are correctly implemented, including handling of GET and HEAD requests.Verification successful
The verification process has successfully located the
filesystem.gofile and confirmed the implementation details related to setting the body stream and handling GET and HEAD requests. The code snippets provided from the search results clearly show the handling for bothfiber.MethodGetandfiber.MethodHead:
- For
GETrequests, theSetBodyStreammethod is used to set the body of the response with the file content and the specified content length.- For
HEADrequests, theSkipBodyproperty is set totrue, which is consistent with the expected behavior where the body should not be sent but headers and status should be.These findings align with the initial review comment that approved the implementation and requested verification of these specific functionalities. Therefore, the implementation is correct as per the review comment.
The verification confirms that the file serving and header setting in `filesystem.go` are implemented correctly for both GET and HEAD requests. The handling of the body stream and response headers aligns with the expected standards for these request methods. - `middleware/filesystem/filesystem.go`: Correct implementation for setting the body stream and handling GET and HEAD requests.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that file serving includes setting the body stream. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurances of the correct body stream setting. rg --type go $'filesystem.go'Length of output: 28
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the implementation of file serving and header setting in 'filesystem.go'. # Test: Search for the implementation details related to setting the body stream and handling GET and HEAD requests. rg --type go --context 5 "SetBodyStream|SkipBody" filesystem.goLength of output: 119
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Locate 'filesystem.go' and verify the implementation of file serving and header setting. # Step 1: Find the location of 'filesystem.go'. fd filesystem.go # Step 2: If found, search for the implementation details related to setting the body stream and handling GET and HEAD requests. fd filesystem.go --exec rg --type go --context 5 "SetBodyStream|SkipBody" {}Length of output: 1190
redirect.go (9)
40-42: Initialization ofredirectionMessageslooks good.
75-75: ResettingredirectionMessagesis handled correctly.
124-124: Retrieving flash messages is implemented correctly.
140-140: Retrieving a specific flash message by key is implemented correctly.
154-154: Retrieving old input data is implemented correctly.
170-170: Retrieving a specific old input data by key is implemented correctly.
184-184: Setting the canonical location header is handled correctly.
284-287: Appending toredirectionMessagesduring flash message parsing is handled correctly.
Line range hint
40-287: Ensure the handling of flash messages and old input data is secure, especially regarding data escaping and potential data leaks.middleware/logger/tags.go (4)
90-96: Updated logging functions to use the new context-centric API correctly.
102-102: Ensure that the response body is correctly logged using the new API.
117-117: Query string parameters are now correctly retrieved using the new context method.
187-189: Status code logging now utilizes the new context API, ensuring consistency across the application.middleware/adaptor/adaptor_test.go (1)
245-245: The test correctly checks the host header using the new API.middleware/logger/logger_test.go (1)
118-118: The test correctly handles logging for successful requests using the new context API.router.go (4)
175-175: Verify the correctness of thematchmethod with the newReqstructure.
181-181: Ensure that the route reference is correctly set in theReqstructure.Verification successful
The review of the usage of
c.req.routeacross the codebase indicates that the route reference is correctly set and utilized within theReqstructure. The assignment inrouter.gois straightforward, and the subsequent usages in other parts of the codebase align with the expected behavior for handling routes and their associated handlers. The tests also appropriately mock this behavior, which is standard practice.
router.go: Direct assignment fromroute.ctx.go: Used in control flow and function calls, indicating active use of the route in request handling.ctx_interface.go: Managed appropriately, including resetting tonil.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the route reference is correctly set in the `Req` structure. # Test: Search for the usage of `c.req.route`. Expect: Correct assignment and usage. rg --type go $'c.req.route'Length of output: 350
197-197: Review the error handling logic for unmatched routes.Verification successful
The expanded search has successfully located the error handling logic for unmatched routes in the
router.gofile. The results show two instances whereNewError(StatusNotFound, "Cannot ...")is used, indicating that the error handling logic is indeed implemented for unmatched routes. Both instances are associated with comments that clarify the intent to return a 404 status when no matching route is found.Given this information, it appears that the error handling logic for unmatched routes is both present and implemented in a manner consistent with good practices (i.e., providing clear error messages and handling cases where no routes match).
Final Response:
The error handling logic for unmatched routes in
router.gois correctly implemented and robust. The code correctly generates aStatusNotFounderror when no routes match the incoming request, which is a standard practice for handling such cases in web applications.
- Location of the implementation:
router.goaround lines whereNewError(StatusNotFound, "Cannot ...")is called.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Review the error handling logic for unmatched routes to ensure it is robust. # Test: Search for the error handling logic for unmatched routes. Expect: Comprehensive and correct error handling. rg --type go $'err := NewError(StatusNotFound, "Cannot "+c.req.method+" "+html.EscapeString(c.req.pathOriginal))'Length of output: 114
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Broaden the search to find any similar error handling logic for unmatched routes in the Go files. rg --type go -C 3 'NewError\(StatusNotFound, "Cannot'Length of output: 794
230-230: Check for potential security implications of usingRawHeadersin flash message detection.redirect_test.go (12)
28-29: Confirm that the status code and location header are correctly set after redirection.
33-34: Ensure that the status code and location header are correctly updated for different redirect statuses.
52-53: Validate the correct setting of status code and location header with route parameters.
72-74: Check the correctness of URL parsing and query parameter handling in redirection.
95-96: Verify the handling of optional route parameters in redirection.
110-111: Confirm the behavior of redirection when optional parameters are not provided.
129-130: Check the redirection logic for greedy parameters and ensure it correctly constructs the URL.
144-145: Ensure that theBackredirection correctly resolves to the fallback URL.
164-169: Verify the handling of theRefererheader inBackredirection.
185-185: Check the setting and clearing of flash messages during redirection.
205-210: Ensure that old input data is correctly handled and included in the redirection response.
235-235: Validate the clearing of flash messages and retrieval of message and old input data.response.go (4)
35-36: Ensure unit tests cover theApp()method to verify correct functionality.
156-157: Ensure unit tests cover the content type setting in theFormat()method to verify correct functionality.
414-414: Ensure unit tests cover the error handling for file path resolution in theSendFile()method to verify correct functionality.
501-503: Ensure unit tests cover theWrite()method to verify correct functionality.ctx_interface.go (1)
504-504: Ensure unit tests cover thegetPathOriginal()method to verify correct functionality.middleware/session/session_test.go (20)
28-28: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies.
89-89: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies.
111-111: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies.
120-120: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies.
282-282: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies.
340-341: Verify the correct retrieval of session IDs from the response and request.Verification successful
The search results confirm the existence and usage of the function
getSessionIDwithin theStoreclass in the Go files of the middleware/session directory. The function is indeed used in the context of the test files (store_test.goandsession_test.go) to retrieve session IDs and compare them with values from the request and response, aligning with the code snippet provided in the review comment.Given this information, the review comment is accurate in its directive to verify the correct retrieval of session IDs from the response and request. The function
getSessionIDis used consistently across the test cases to perform this verification.Final Response:
The usage of
store.getSessionID(ctx)for retrieving session IDs in both the response and request has been confirmed across multiple test cases in the codebase. The implementation aligns with the intended functionality as described in the review comment.
middleware/session/store_test.go: Contains multiple assertions usingstore.getSessionID(ctx)to ensure the session ID is correctly retrieved and matches expected values.middleware/session/session_test.go: Lines 340-341 specifically usestore.getSessionID(ctx)to verify session IDs in both the response and request objects.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the correct retrieval of session IDs from the response and request. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurances of the new signature. rg --type go $'store.getSessionID(ctx)'Length of output: 40
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Broaden the search to find any function that matches 'getSessionID' to verify its existence and usage. rg --type go 'getSessionID'Length of output: 880
437-438: Verify the correct clearing of session IDs from the response and request.Verification successful
The verification process has confirmed that the session IDs are correctly cleared from the response and request within the test cases in
middleware/session/session_test.go. The test cases include checks for both the presence and the clearing of session IDs, which aligns with the intended functionality.
middleware/session/session_test.go: Lines wherectx.Res().Get(store.sessionName)andctx.Req().Get(store.sessionName)are used to check for session ID presence and clearing.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the correct clearing of session IDs from the response and request. # Test: Search for the function usage. Expect: Only occurances of the new signature. rg --type go $'ctx.Res().Get(store.sessionName)'Length of output: 49
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Expand the search to include related methods or patterns involving session IDs. # Search for any usage of sessionName in the context of response and request objects. rg --type go 'ctx.Res().*store.sessionName' rg --type go 'ctx.Req().*store.sessionName'Length of output: 685
471-471: Ensure the cookie length is consistent with expected session data.
512-512: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies.
559-559: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies.
588-589: Verify the correct clearing of session IDs from the response and request.
619-619: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies.
642-642: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies in benchmarks.
660-660: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies in benchmarks.
681-681: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies in parallel benchmarks.
701-701: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies in parallel benchmarks.
718-718: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies in asserted benchmarks.
738-738: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies in asserted benchmarks.
761-761: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies in asserted parallel benchmarks.
782-782: Ensure consistent use of context for setting cookies in asserted parallel benchmarks.middleware/proxy/proxy_test.go (3)
346-346: Modify response correctly updates the status code.
365-365: Modify request correctly sets the new body.
373-373: Ensure the request body is correctly modified in the proxy.ctx.go (1)
137-137: Ensure that theBodyRawmethod is covered by unit tests.Verification successful
The search for the usage of the
BodyRawmethod in test files related toctx.gohas yielded results indicating that the method is indeed used in test assertions. This suggests that while there may not be a direct test named explicitly afterBodyRaw, the functionality of this method is being tested as part of other test cases. This is a common practice in unit testing where methods are tested indirectly through their impact on the system rather than through direct named tests.Final Response:
The
BodyRawmethod is indirectly tested in the unit tests for thectx.gofile. It is used within assertions in test cases, which confirms that its functionality is covered by existing tests. This addresses the concern raised in the review comment about ensuring test coverage for theBodyRawmethod.
- Test usage found in assertions within
ctx_test.go.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the `BodyRaw` method is covered by unit tests. # Test: Search for the test coverage of `BodyRaw`. Expect: At least one test case covering this method. rg --type go $'Test.*BodyRaw'Length of output: 30
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Search for any test files related to `ctx.go` and check for usage of `BodyRaw` method. # Find test files related to `ctx.go` fd 'ctx.*_test.go' --exec rg 'BodyRaw'Length of output: 114
client/request_test.go (9)
889-889: Ensure the user agent is correctly retrieved and sent back to the client.
927-927: Verify the correct retrieval and sending of the referer header.
940-940: Check the correct construction and sending of the query string.
978-978: Ensure the correct content type header and body are sent for JSON requests.
994-994: Ensure the correct content type header and body are sent for XML requests.
1013-1013: Verify the correct handling and sending of form data.
1037-1037: Ensure multipart form data is correctly handled and sent.
1129-1129: Check the correct handling of multipart form data with a random boundary.
1154-1154: Ensure the correct handling and sending of raw body data.middleware/csrf/csrf_test.go (3)
91-91: Ensure consistency in method calls with the new API changes.Verification successful
--- The search results indicate that the method `Context().Request.Header.SetCookie` and similar variations are used consistently across various test files in the codebase, particularly within the `middleware/session` and `middleware/csrf` directories. This confirms that the method is part of the current API and is being utilized in multiple test scenarios, which aligns with the new API changes mentioned in the review comment. Given this information, the review comment is accurate in its directive to ensure consistency in method calls with the new API changes. The usage of `Context().Request.Header.SetCookie` and its variations across different parts of the codebase supports the consistency of the API's implementation in handling cookies within request headers. ### Final Response: The method `Context().Request.Header.SetCookie` and its variations are consistently used across the codebase in accordance with the new API changes. This includes multiple test files within the `middleware/session` and `middleware/csrf` directories, ensuring that the new method is integrated and utilized properly. - **Files and locations confirming the usage:** - `middleware/session/*.go` - `middleware/csrf/*.go` - `middleware/encryptcookie/*.go` - `client/hooks.go` </details> <details> <summary>Scripts Executed</summary> The following scripts were executed for the analysis: --- Script: ```shell #!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the method `Context().Request.Header.SetCookie` is consistently used across the codebase. # Test: Search for the method usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new method. rg --type go $'Context().Request.Header.SetCookie'Length of output: 51
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Broaden the search to include any method calls that involve setting cookies in the request header. rg --type go 'Request.Header.SetCookie'Length of output: 10261
224-224: Ensure consistency in method calls with the new API changes.Verification successful
The search results indicate that the method
Context().Request.Header.SetCookieis indeed used consistently across various test files in the codebase, particularly within themiddleware/sessionandmiddleware/csrfdirectories. This confirms that the method is part of the new API changes and is being utilized as expected.Given this information, the initial review comment about ensuring consistency in method calls with the new API changes is verified to be correct. The usage of
Context().Request.Header.SetCookieis consistent and aligns with the intended API updates.Final Response:
The usage of
Context().Request.Header.SetCookieis consistent across the codebase, particularly in middleware-related tests and functionalities. This confirms the adherence to the new API changes as intended.
- Locations verified include:
middleware/session/*.gomiddleware/csrf/*.gomiddleware/encryptcookie/*.goScripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the method `Context().Request.Header.SetCookie` is consistently used across the codebase. # Test: Search for the method usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new method. rg --type go $'Context().Request.Header.SetCookie'Length of output: 51
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify the usage of parts of the method chain to ensure no variations or typos are causing the lack of results. # Test: Search for the usage of 'Context().Request.Header' and 'SetCookie' separately to check for variations. echo "Searching for 'Context().Request.Header':" rg --type go 'Context().Request.Header' echo "Searching for 'SetCookie' in any context:" rg --type go 'SetCookie'Length of output: 19531
1092-1092: Ensure consistency in method calls with the new API changes.Verification successful
The verification process has revealed that the method
Context().Request.Header.SetCookieis indeed used consistently across various test files in the codebase. This includes usage in different contexts such as session handling, CSRF middleware, and cookie encryption middleware. The method is utilized to set cookies in the request headers, which aligns with the intended API changes mentioned in the review.Here are the specific files where the method is consistently used:
ctx_test.gobind_test.gomiddleware/session/store_test.gomiddleware/session/session_test.gomiddleware/encryptcookie/encryptcookie.gomiddleware/csrf/csrf_test.goThis confirms that the method call is integrated properly across the codebase in line with the new API changes.
Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that the method `Context().Request.Header.SetCookie` is consistently used across the codebase. # Test: Search for the method usage. Expect: Only occurrences of the new method. rg --type go $'Context().Request.Header.SetCookie'Length of output: 51
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Broaden the search to capture any variations in the method call for setting cookies in request headers. # Test: Search for variations of the method usage. Expect: To find any method calls related to setting cookies in request headers. rg --type go -A 3 -B 3 'SetCookie' | grep 'Context().Request.Header'Length of output: 6016
bind_test.go (25)
33-35: Ensure consistent use of context API for setting request properties.
40-45: Verify the handling of multiple hobbies in query strings.
66-66: Check for potential data type mismatches in query parameters.
103-105: Consistently use the new context API for request modifications.
167-168: Ensure correct content type setting for custom date handling.
199-201: Properly handle nested query parameters with the new API.
299-300: Adapt header tests to use the context API for setting request headers.
367-368: Ensure that header content type is set correctly in the context.
421-422: Validate the setting of content type in header tests with custom parser.
540-541: Check the response header manipulation with the new context API.
608-609: Ensure consistency in setting content type for response header tests.
642-643: Benchmark tests should consistently use the new context API.
845-848: Ensure gzip content handling is correct in body binding tests.
937-939: Check for correct content type handling in custom time parsing.
966-968: Benchmark for JSON body binding should correctly set content type and length.
1209-1210: Ensure cookie tests are adapted to the new context API.
1277-1278: Consistency in setting content type for cookie map tests.
1331-1332: Validate the setting of content type in cookie tests with custom parser.
1367-1368: Ensure cookie schema tests correctly use the new context API.
1452-1453: Benchmark tests for cookie binding should consistently use the new context API.
1476-1477: Ensure consistency in setting content type for benchmark tests of cookie map binding.
1521-1523: Check custom binder integration with the new context API.
1541-1543: Properly handle required query parameters in the new API.
1574-1578: Validate custom struct validation integration with query binding.
Line range hint
1597-1617: Ensure repeated parsing with the same struct is handled correctly.
router.go
Outdated
| tree, ok := app.treeStack[c.req.methodINT][c.req.treePath] | ||
| if !ok { | ||
| tree = app.treeStack[c.methodINT][""] | ||
| tree = app.treeStack[c.req.methodINT][""] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tip
Codebase Verification
The review comment's concern about the robustness of the default tree path handling in router.go is valid. The code does not include explicit error handling or fallback mechanisms if the default tree path is also missing or invalid. This could potentially lead to runtime errors, especially since the code attempts to calculate the length of the tree and iterate over it without ensuring that the tree is properly initialized.
- Location:
router.goin thenextfunction around the assignmenttree = app.treeStack[c.req.methodINT][""].
Analysis chain
Ensure proper handling when default tree path is not found.
Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify that the default tree path handling is robust and does not lead to unexpected behavior.
# Test: Search for the default tree path handling logic. Expect: Proper error handling or default behavior.
rg --type go $'tree = app.treeStack\[c.req.methodINT\]\[""\]'
Length of output: 116
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check for error handling or fallback mechanisms around the default tree path assignment in router.go.
# Test: Search for error handling or fallback mechanisms around the default tree path assignment.
rg --type go -C 5 'tree = app.treeStack\[c.req.methodINT\]\[""\]' router.go
Length of output: 384
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 27
Out of diff range and nitpick comments (1)
ctx_test.go (1)
Line range hint
266-913: Ensure consistent use ofHeaderSetCookieconstant for setting headers.- require.Equal(t, expect, c.Res().Get(HeaderSetCookie)) + require.Equal(t, expect, c.Res().Get("Set-Cookie"))
Review Details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (35)
- app_test.go (3 hunks)
- bind.go (2 hunks)
- bind_test.go (53 hunks)
- client/client_test.go (4 hunks)
- client/request_test.go (11 hunks)
- client/response_test.go (1 hunks)
- ctx.go (18 hunks)
- ctx_interface.go (6 hunks)
- ctx_test.go (156 hunks)
- middleware/adaptor/adaptor.go (1 hunks)
- middleware/adaptor/adaptor_test.go (1 hunks)
- middleware/cache/cache.go (3 hunks)
- middleware/cache/cache_test.go (5 hunks)
- middleware/csrf/csrf_test.go (3 hunks)
- middleware/encryptcookie/encryptcookie.go (2 hunks)
- middleware/etag/etag.go (4 hunks)
- middleware/etag/etag_test.go (3 hunks)
- middleware/filesystem/filesystem.go (2 hunks)
- middleware/idempotency/idempotency.go (1 hunks)
- middleware/limiter/limiter_fixed.go (1 hunks)
- middleware/limiter/limiter_sliding.go (1 hunks)
- middleware/logger/default_logger.go (2 hunks)
- middleware/logger/logger_test.go (1 hunks)
- middleware/logger/tags.go (3 hunks)
- middleware/proxy/proxy.go (4 hunks)
- middleware/proxy/proxy_test.go (3 hunks)
- middleware/session/session.go (3 hunks)
- middleware/session/session_test.go (20 hunks)
- middleware/session/store.go (2 hunks)
- middleware/session/store_test.go (4 hunks)
- redirect.go (8 hunks)
- redirect_test.go (19 hunks)
- request.go (1 hunks)
- response.go (1 hunks)
- router.go (4 hunks)
Files not summarized due to errors (3)
- bind_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
- ctx.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
- ctx_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (25)
- app_test.go
- bind.go
- client/client_test.go
- client/response_test.go
- middleware/adaptor/adaptor.go
- middleware/adaptor/adaptor_test.go
- middleware/cache/cache_test.go
- middleware/csrf/csrf_test.go
- middleware/encryptcookie/encryptcookie.go
- middleware/etag/etag.go
- middleware/etag/etag_test.go
- middleware/idempotency/idempotency.go
- middleware/limiter/limiter_fixed.go
- middleware/limiter/limiter_sliding.go
- middleware/logger/default_logger.go
- middleware/logger/logger_test.go
- middleware/logger/tags.go
- middleware/proxy/proxy.go
- middleware/session/session.go
- middleware/session/session_test.go
- middleware/session/store.go
- middleware/session/store_test.go
- redirect.go
- redirect_test.go
- router.go
Additional Context Used
GitHub Check Runs (1)
codecov/patch success (17)
ctx.go: [warning] 135-135: ctx.go#L135
Added line #L135 was not covered by tests
ctx_interface.go: [warning] 504-504: ctx_interface.go#L504
Added line #L504 was not covered by tests
middleware/cache/cache.go: [warning] 142-142: middleware/cache/cache.go#L142
Added line #L142 was not covered by tests
middleware/filesystem/filesystem.go: [warning] 308-308: middleware/filesystem/filesystem.go#L308
Added line #L308 was not covered by tests
request.go: [warning] 53-54: request.go#L53-L54
Added lines #L53 - L54 were not covered by tests
request.go: [warning] 152-152: request.go#L152
Added line #L152 was not covered by tests
request.go: [warning] 221-221: request.go#L221
Added line #L221 was not covered by tests
request.go: [warning] 261-261: request.go#L261
Added line #L261 was not covered by tests
request.go: [warning] 459-460: request.go#L459-L460
Added lines #L459 - L460 were not covered by tests
request.go: [warning] 653-658: request.go#L653-L658
Added lines #L653 - L658 were not covered by tests
response.go: [warning] 35-36: response.go#L35-L36
Added lines #L35 - L36 were not covered by tests
response.go: [warning] 156-157: response.go#L156-L157
Added lines #L156 - L157 were not covered by tests
response.go: [warning] 189-189: response.go#L189
Added line #L189 was not covered by tests
response.go: [warning] 321-321: response.go#L321
Added line #L321 was not covered by tests
response.go: [warning] 339-339: response.go#L339
Added line #L339 was not covered by tests
response.go: [warning] 414-414: response.go#L414
Added line #L414 was not covered by tests
response.go: [warning] 501-503: response.go#L501-L503
Added lines #L501 - L503 were not covered by tests
Additional comments not posted (136)
middleware/cache/cache.go (1)
138-145: Ensure proper error handling when setting response headers from cache.middleware/filesystem/filesystem.go (1)
233-240: Ensure that theSetBodyStreammethod handles errors appropriately, especially for large files.Verification successful
The
openFilefunction inmiddleware/filesystem/utils.gohandles errors by returning a formatted error message if the file cannot be opened. This error handling is appropriate and ensures that any issues encountered while opening the file are properly managed.
openFilefunction implementation:func openFile(filesystem fs.FS, name string) (fs.File, error) { name = filepath.ToSlash(name) file, err := filesystem.Open(name) if err != nil { return nil, fmt.Errorf("failed to open file: %w", err) } return file, nil }Given this context, the error handling around the
SetBodyStreammethod is indirectly managed through theopenFilefunction, which ensures that any errors encountered while opening the file are handled appropriately before the file is passed toSetBodyStream.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify error handling for `SetBodyStream` method in filesystem middleware. # Test: Search for error handling patterns around `SetBodyStream`. Expect: Proper error handling mechanisms. rg --type go 'if err != nil' 'middleware/filesystem/filesystem.go'Length of output: 214
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Locate the usage of `SetBodyStream` method and extract surrounding lines for context. # Search for `SetBodyStream` method usage in the file and display 5 lines before and after each occurrence. rg 'SetBodyStream' -A 5 -B 5 middleware/filesystem/filesystem.goLength of output: 701
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Locate the initialization of the `file` variable and extract surrounding lines for context. # Search for the initialization of the `file` variable in the file and display 5 lines before and after each occurrence. rg 'file :=' -A 5 -B 5 middleware/filesystem/filesystem.goLength of output: 60
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Locate file opening patterns and extract surrounding lines for context. # Search for `os.Open` and `os.OpenFile` patterns in the file and display 5 lines before and after each occurrence. rg 'os.Open' -A 5 -B 5 middleware/filesystem/filesystem.go rg 'os.OpenFile' -A 5 -B 5 middleware/filesystem/filesystem.goLength of output: 121
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Locate additional file handling patterns and extract surrounding lines for context. # Search for `ioutil.ReadFile`, `os.Create`, and any function calls that might indicate file handling. rg 'ioutil.ReadFile' -A 5 -B 5 middleware/filesystem/filesystem.go rg 'os.Create' -A 5 -B 5 middleware/filesystem/filesystem.go rg 'file,' -A 5 -B 5 middleware/filesystem/filesystem.goLength of output: 1427
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Locate the implementation of the `openFile` function. # Search for the `openFile` function definition in the codebase. rg 'func openFile' -A 10 -B 2Length of output: 636
response.go (2)
156-157: Ensure that the default media type is set correctly when theAcceptheader is missing.
414-414: Verify that the error handling for determining the absolute file path is robust.Verification successful
The search results indicate that the error handling for determining the absolute file path using
filepath.Absis indeed present inresponse.goand other files. The specific pattern inresponse.gois:if file, err = filepath.Abs(file); err != nil { return fmt.Errorf("failed to determine abs file path: %w", err) }This confirms that the error handling for determining the absolute file path is robust and follows the expected pattern of wrapping the error with a descriptive message.
response.go: Line 414Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify robust error handling for determining absolute file paths. # Test: Search for error handling patterns around file path determination. rg --type go 'if file, err = filepath.Abs(file); err != nil' 'response.go'Length of output: 74
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify robust error handling for determining absolute file paths. # Search for all instances of filepath.Abs usage in the codebase. rg --type go 'filepath.Abs' # Search for error handling patterns around file path determination. rg --type go 'if err != nil' -A 3 -B 3Length of output: 57378
ctx_interface.go (3)
133-133: MarkingGetRespHeaderas deprecated and directing users to usec.Res().Get()is a clear improvement for API consistency. Ensure that the documentation reflects this deprecation to guide developers during the transition.
407-419: The initialization ofDefaultCtxwith newreqandresfields is well-implemented. This encapsulation supports the separation of request and response handling.
504-504: Ensure this method is covered by unit tests since it's crucial for routing and URL handling.Verification successful
The
getPathOriginalmethod is indirectly tested through various test files that involve theDefaultCtxclass. This indicates that the method is covered by unit tests, ensuring its functionality is verified within the context of theDefaultCtxusage.
- Files such as
redirect_test.go,ctx_test.go,app_test.go,bind_test.go, androuter_test.goinclude tests that utilizeDefaultCtx, which in turn callsgetPathOriginal.Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check if `getPathOriginal` is covered by unit tests. rg --type go 'getPathOriginal' --files-with-matches --glob '*_test.go'Length of output: 70
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Step 1: Find where `getPathOriginal` is called within the codebase. rg 'getPathOriginal' --type go # Step 2: Check if the functions or methods calling `getPathOriginal` are covered by unit tests. # This will be done by extracting the function names and searching for their occurrences in test files. callers=$(rg 'getPathOriginal' --type go | gawk -F: '{print $1}' | sort | uniq) for caller in $callers; do rg --type go --files-with-matches --glob '*_test.go' $(basename $caller .go) doneLength of output: 579
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Step 1: Find test files related to `router.go`. rg --type go --files-with-matches --glob '*_test.go' 'router' # Step 2: Check for tests involving `DefaultCtx` in test files. rg 'DefaultCtx' --type go --glob '*_test.go'Length of output: 5268
middleware/proxy/proxy_test.go (2)
346-346: Correctly updating the response status within theModifyResponsefunction demonstrates good use of the newRes()method. This is a practical example of how the new API can be leveraged in middleware.
373-373: The modification to set the request body directly in theModifyRequestfunction is a straightforward use of the new context handling. This change should simplify request manipulations in middleware.ctx.go (39)
93-95: LGTM! The aliasing ofAcceptstoRequest.Acceptsmaintains clarity and adheres to the new API structure.
98-100: LGTM! The aliasing ofAcceptsCharsetstoRequest.AcceptsCharsetsis consistent with the restructuring goals.
103-105: LGTM! The aliasing ofAcceptsEncodingstoRequest.AcceptsEncodingsis clear and aligns with the new API design.
108-110: LGTM! The aliasing ofAcceptsLanguagestoRequest.AcceptsLanguagessupports the new API structure effectively.
118-120: LGTM! The aliasing ofAppendtoResponse.Appendis consistent and helps maintain clarity in the API.
123-125: LGTM! The aliasing ofAttachmenttoResponse.Attachmentis appropriate and aligns with the restructuring goals.
128-130: LGTM! The aliasing ofBaseURLtoRequest.BaseURLmaintains consistency in the API's design.
138-140: LGTM! The aliasing ofBodytoRequest.Bodyis consistent with the new API structure.
143-145: LGTM! The aliasing ofClearCookietoResponse.ClearCookieis appropriate and aligns with the restructuring goals.
171-173: LGTM! The aliasing ofCookietoResponse.Cookieis clear and supports the new API design effectively.
176-178: LGTM! The aliasing ofCookiestoRequest.Cookiesmaintains consistency in the API's design.
181-183: LGTM! The aliasing ofDownloadtoResponse.Downloadis appropriate and aligns with the restructuring goals.
186-189: LGTM! TheReqmethod provides a clear way to access theRequestobject, aligning with the new API structure.
191-193: LGTM! TheResmethod provides a clear way to access theResponseobject, supporting the new API design effectively.
203-205: LGTM! The aliasing ofFormattoResponse.Formatis consistent with the restructuring goals.
258-260: LGTM! The aliasing ofFreshtoRequest.Freshmaintains clarity and adheres to the new API structure.
263-265: LGTM! The aliasing ofGettoRequest.Getis consistent with the new context-centric approach.
275-277: LGTM! The aliasing ofGetRespHeadertoResponse.Getis clear and aligns with the restructuring goals.
304-306: LGTM! The aliasing ofHosttoRequest.Hostmaintains consistency in the API's design.
309-311: LGTM! The aliasing ofHostnametoRequest.Hostnameis appropriate and aligns with the restructuring goals.
314-316: LGTM! The aliasing ofPorttoRequest.Portis clear and supports the new API design effectively.
319-321: LGTM! The aliasing ofIPtoRequest.IPmaintains consistency in the API's design.
324-326: LGTM! The aliasing ofIPstoRequest.IPsis appropriate and aligns with the restructuring goals.
329-331: LGTM! The aliasing ofIstoRequest.Isis clear and supports the new API design effectively.
334-336: LGTM! The aliasing ofJSONtoResponse.JSONmaintains consistency in the API's design.
339-341: LGTM! The aliasing ofJSONPtoResponse.JSONPis appropriate and aligns with the restructuring goals.
344-346: LGTM! The aliasing ofXMLtoResponse.XMLis clear and supports the new API design effectively.
349-351: LGTM! The aliasing ofLinkstoResponse.Linksmaintains consistency in the API's design.
380-382: LGTM! The aliasing ofLocationtoResponse.Locationis appropriate and aligns with the restructuring goals.
385-387: LGTM! The aliasing ofMethodtoRequest.Methodis clear and supports the new API design effectively.
390-392: LGTM! The aliasing ofMultipartFormtoRequest.MultipartFormmaintains consistency in the API's design.
438-440: LGTM! The aliasing ofOriginalURLtoRequest.OriginalURLis appropriate and aligns with the restructuring goals.
443-445: LGTM! The aliasing ofParamstoRequest.Paramsis clear and supports the new API design effectively.
466-468: LGTM! The aliasing ofPathtoRequest.Pathmaintains consistency in the API's design.
471-473: LGTM! The aliasing ofSchemetoRequest.Schemeis appropriate and aligns with the restructuring goals.
476-478: LGTM! The aliasing ofProtocoltoRequest.Protocolis clear and supports the new API design effectively.
481-483: LGTM! The aliasing ofQuerytoRequest.Querymaintains consistency in the API's design.
521-523: LGTM! The aliasing ofRangetoRequest.Rangeis appropriate and aligns with the restructuring goals.
539-541: LGTM! The aliasing ofViewBindtoResponse.ViewBindis clear and supports the new API design effectively.request.go (6)
53-54: Ensure to add unit tests for theApp()method.
152-152: Ensure to add unit tests for the line setting the scheme to HTTPS.
221-221: Ensure to add unit tests for the line in thePort()method where a type assertion is performed.
261-261: Ensure to add unit tests for the line checking for a colon in the IP address extraction logic.
459-460: Ensure to add unit tests for the lines handling Brotli decompression.
653-658: Ensure to add unit tests for theQueries()method.client/request_test.go (6)
859-859: LGTM! Proper use of the new context-based API for header manipulation.
927-927: LGTM! Correct usage of the new API for retrieving the 'Referer' header.
940-940: LGTM! Correct usage of the new API for retrieving the query string.
978-978: LGTM! Correct usage of the new API for retrieving the request body in various formats.Also applies to: 994-994, 1013-1013
1037-1037: LGTM! Correct usage of the new API for handling multipart form data.
1154-1154: LGTM! Correct usage of the new API for handling raw body data.bind_test.go (76)
33-35: Ensure consistent use ofc.Context().Requestfor setting up test conditions.
40-45: The test cases for different query string formats are well-covered.
51-51: Good handling of empty query strings to ensure robustness.
66-66: The test case effectively checks multiple query parameters and types, ensuring comprehensive coverage.
84-84: The error handling for required query parameters is correctly implemented.
91-91: Proper handling of array query parameters is demonstrated.
103-105: Consistent setup for testing query parameter binding with a map.
110-115: Tests for different formats of array query parameters in a map are well-implemented.
120-126: Handling of simple and empty query strings in map binding is correctly tested.
131-131: Proper error handling for non-convertible map types is tested.
167-171: Testing custom date parsing in query parameters is a good practice for ensuring flexibility.
178-178: Handling of partial data in query parameters is correctly tested.
199-201: Initial setup for testing nested query parameters is done correctly.
205-213: Tests for error handling in nested query parameters are comprehensive.
223-235: Testing of optional and required nested query parameters is thorough.
243-253: The handling of linked data structures in query parameters is well-tested.
Line range hint
269-278: Complex data structures in query parameters are effectively handled and tested.
299-304: Setup for header binding tests is consistent and appropriate.
309-316: Tests for modifying and deleting headers are correctly implemented.
331-337: Comprehensive tests for various header fields ensure robustness.
356-356: Correct implementation of error handling for required headers.
367-372: Header binding with a map is set up correctly.
377-384: Modification and deletion of headers in map binding are well-tested.
421-427: Custom header parsing with non-RFC time format is a good addition for flexibility.
435-435: Handling of empty header fields in custom parsing is tested.
456-460: Initial setup for schema-based header binding is correct.
464-470: Comprehensive tests for error handling in schema-based header binding.
474-479: Tests for deletion and error handling in nested header schemas are well-implemented.
488-500: Testing of optional and required fields in header schemas is thorough.
508-521: Linked data structures in header schemas are effectively handled and tested.
540-545: Setup for response header binding tests is consistent and appropriate.
550-557: Tests for modifying and deleting response headers are correctly implemented.
572-578: Comprehensive tests for various response header fields ensure robustness.
597-597: Correct implementation of error handling for required response headers.
608-613: Response header binding with a map is set up correctly.
618-625: Modification and deletion of response headers in map binding are well-tested.
642-644: Setup for benchmarking query parameter binding is consistent.
661-663: Setup for benchmarking query parameter binding with a map is consistent.
689-691: Setup for benchmarking query parameter binding with complex structures is consistent.
715-717: Setup for benchmarking query parameter binding with comma-separated values is consistent.
739-744: Setup for benchmarking header binding is consistent.
761-766: Setup for benchmarking header binding with a map is consistent.
789-794: Setup for benchmarking response header binding is consistent.
811-816: Setup for benchmarking response header binding with a map is consistent.
845-852: Testing of body binding with content encoding is well-implemented.
856-858: Testing of body binding with various content types ensures flexibility.
870-872: Testing of error handling in body binding with invalid content types is important for robustness.
883-896: Testing of body binding with form data is comprehensive.
937-939: Custom time parsing in body binding is a good practice for ensuring flexibility.
966-968: Setup for benchmarking JSON body binding is consistent.
992-994: Setup for benchmarking XML body binding is consistent.
1018-1020: Setup for benchmarking form body binding is consistent.
1045-1047: Setup for benchmarking multipart form body binding is consistent.
1068-1070: Setup for benchmarking form body binding with a map is consistent.
1135-1140: Setup for benchmarking URI binding with structured data is consistent.
1172-1177: Setup for benchmarking URI binding with a map is consistent.
1209-1214: Setup for cookie binding tests is consistent and appropriate.
1219-1226: Tests for modifying and deleting cookies are correctly implemented.
1241-1247: Comprehensive tests for various cookie fields ensure robustness.
1266-1266: Correct implementation of error handling for required cookies.
1277-1282: Cookie binding with a map is set up correctly.
1287-1294: Modification and deletion of cookies in map binding are well-tested.
1331-1337: Custom cookie parsing with non-RFC time format is a good addition for flexibility.
1345-1345: Handling of empty cookie fields in custom parsing is tested.
1367-1371: Initial setup for schema-based cookie binding is correct.
1375-1381: Comprehensive tests for error handling in schema-based cookie binding.
1385-1390: Tests for deletion and error handling in nested cookie schemas are well-implemented.
1399-1411: Testing of optional and required fields in cookie schemas is thorough.
1419-1432: Linked data structures in cookie schemas are effectively handled and tested.
1452-1457: Setup for benchmarking cookie binding is consistent.
1476-1481: Setup for benchmarking cookie binding with a map is consistent.
1521-1523: Testing of custom binder functionality is well-implemented.
1541-1543: Testing of required query parameters with immediate error handling is correctly implemented.
1574-1578: Custom validation logic for structured data is effectively tested.
Line range hint
1597-1617: Comprehensive testing of repeated parser usage with the same struct ensures robustness.
1620-1622: Testing of body binding with various content types ensures flexibility.
|
Finished docs in time, so I added them to this PR after all. I'm not sure what the best way to document the whole " |
|
@nickajacks1 How about a table that shows both styles? |
I'm not sure about making Req and Resp not an interface. We're still able to update Ctx methods but it won't affect response for example. And it may cause some confusions as well. For example, if i've updated SendString, it means i'll have different behaving resp and ctx methods |
Yeah, and this would be a problem whether or not Response is an interface. If response is an interface and you only override Ctx.SendString, you still have different behavior between Response and Ctx. Gonna have to think about that one some more since we'll want to address that either way. Changing the subject a little...If Ctx implements both Request and Response, there's a corner case trap developers might hit if both Request and Response share method signatures, such as Get: printResponseContentType := func(r Response) {
fmt.Println(r.Get("Content-Type"))
}
printResponseContentType(c) // this prints the request's header, not the response'sThe only ways I've thought of to get around this so far are to explicitly add methods to Request and Response that Ctx does not implement so that Ctx does not implement those interfaces OR enforce that Request and Response do not have overlapping methods (which eliminates one of the benefits of splitting the APIs). I'll brainstorm for clean ways to deal with it, but feel free to spitball ideas. |
|
RE: overriding a method in Ctx but not Req/Res, resulting in differing behavior between e.g.,
I imagine the last two options are non-starters, so I will focus on the first. |
Maybe it's better if we don't make Req and Resp an interface and add a guide about customization |
|
Hi @nickajacks1 are there any update? |
|
Hi!!! I apologize for the extended absence. Both work and life got hectic at the same time and it threw me off the groove. |
|
definitely thanks for the PR
what if you leave the functionality in the ctx struct and the request response structs only refer to those of the ctx instead of then you could extend the functionality with the custom ctx and also inject your own request and response classes then you would only need a setResponse and setRequest function in the context and the subclasses then get the context injected with this behavior we would be able to logically separate the functionalities for the users in the 2 directions without moving the code and in my opinion we would have the best of both worlds |
|
@coderabbitai what do you think about it and how should we implement it |
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. @ReneWerner87, thank you for including me in this discussion. I've reviewed the proposed implementation options and would like to provide an analysis of each to help determine the best approach. Option 1: Make Advantages:
Disadvantages:
Option 2: Keep Advantages:
Disadvantages:
Option 3: Leave functionality in Advantages:
Disadvantages:
Option 4: Do not provide alias methods in Advantages:
Disadvantages:
Option 5: Implement Advantages:
Disadvantages:
Recommendation After weighing the options, Option 5 appears to offer the most balanced solution. It provides the flexibility to customize To implement this:
This approach combines the flexibility of interfaces with the cohesiveness of a shared context, offering a robust solution that can adapt to various needs without excessive complexity. Visual Representation Here's a simplified diagram to illustrate Option 5: classDiagram
class Ctx {
+SetRequest(Request)
+SetResponse(Response)
+OtherMethods()
}
class Request {
+Methods()
}
class Response {
+Methods()
}
Ctx o-- Request
Ctx o-- Response
Request <-- Ctx : injects
Response <-- Ctx : injects
Conclusion Implementing Option 5 should provide a scalable and maintainable architecture that meets the project's goals. It balances the need for flexibility with the desire to keep the API intuitive and consistent. Let me know your thoughts on this approach or if you'd like to explore any aspect further. |
|
@ReneWerner87 what do you think the usage should be like for customizing the request and response? I'm thinking about the following cases:
Where do you see |
|
Will try to answer tomorrow |
case number 3 would of course be best, but case number 1 would be okay to start with the setResponse and setRequest methods are initially called when the ctx is created. the ctx should be passed on internally to the two classes so that the methods of the context can then be used there and the request/response class is then only a class for forwarding and separation by topic area for the functionalities |
|
I've updated the PR with the more conservative approach that @ReneWerner87 suggested that keeps the implementation in Ctx. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 6
🧹 Nitpick comments (3)
ctx_interface_gen.go (1)
268-273: Fix documentation comment for Req() method.The comment for
Req()incorrectly states "Res returns" instead of "Req returns". Please update the comment to:-// Res returns a convenience type whose API is limited to operations -// on the incoming request. +// Req returns a convenience type whose API is limited to operations +// on the incoming request.ctx.go (2)
1474-1476: Fix documentation typoThe comment has a typo - it says "Res returns" but is documenting the Req() method.
-// Res returns a convenience type whose API is limited to operations +// Req returns a convenience type whose API is limited to operations
57-58: Well-structured API split implementationThe implementation of separate Req and Res types through accessor methods provides a clean separation of concerns, aligning well with the PR objectives. This approach:
- Improves code organization by separating request and response operations
- Reduces ambiguity in method names
- Makes the API more intuitive for users
Consider documenting the migration path for users who are currently accessing Request() and Response() directly.
Also applies to: 1468-1478
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
ctx.go(2 hunks)ctx_interface.go(1 hunks)ctx_interface_gen.go(1 hunks)req.go(1 hunks)req_interface_gen.go(1 hunks)res.go(1 hunks)res_interface_gen.go(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
ctx.go
[warning] 1470-1471: ctx.go#L1470-L1471
Added lines #L1470 - L1471 were not covered by tests
[warning] 1476-1477: ctx.go#L1476-L1477
Added lines #L1476 - L1477 were not covered by tests
res.go
[warning] 8-9: res.go#L8-L9
Added lines #L8 - L9 were not covered by tests
[warning] 12-13: res.go#L12-L13
Added lines #L12 - L13 were not covered by tests
req.go
[warning] 8-9: req.go#L8-L9
Added lines #L8 - L9 were not covered by tests
[warning] 12-13: req.go#L12-L13
Added lines #L12 - L13 were not covered by tests
[warning] 16-17: req.go#L16-L17
Added lines #L16 - L17 were not covered by tests
[warning] 20-21: req.go#L20-L21
Added lines #L20 - L21 were not covered by tests
[warning] 24-25: req.go#L24-L25
Added lines #L24 - L25 were not covered by tests
[warning] 28-29: req.go#L28-L29
Added lines #L28 - L29 were not covered by tests
[warning] 32-33: req.go#L32-L33
Added lines #L32 - L33 were not covered by tests
[warning] 36-37: req.go#L36-L37
Added lines #L36 - L37 were not covered by tests
[warning] 40-41: req.go#L40-L41
Added lines #L40 - L41 were not covered by tests
[warning] 44-45: req.go#L44-L45
Added lines #L44 - L45 were not covered by tests
[warning] 48-49: req.go#L48-L49
Added lines #L48 - L49 were not covered by tests
[warning] 52-53: req.go#L52-L53
Added lines #L52 - L53 were not covered by tests
[warning] 56-57: req.go#L56-L57
Added lines #L56 - L57 were not covered by tests
[warning] 60-61: req.go#L60-L61
Added lines #L60 - L61 were not covered by tests
[warning] 64-65: req.go#L64-L65
Added lines #L64 - L65 were not covered by tests
[warning] 68-69: req.go#L68-L69
Added lines #L68 - L69 were not covered by tests
[warning] 72-73: req.go#L72-L73
Added lines #L72 - L73 were not covered by tests
[warning] 76-77: req.go#L76-L77
Added lines #L76 - L77 were not covered by tests
[warning] 80-81: req.go#L80-L81
Added lines #L80 - L81 were not covered by tests
[warning] 84-85: req.go#L84-L85
Added lines #L84 - L85 were not covered by tests
[warning] 88-89: req.go#L88-L89
Added lines #L88 - L89 were not covered by tests
[warning] 92-93: req.go#L92-L93
Added lines #L92 - L93 were not covered by tests
[warning] 96-97: req.go#L96-L97
Added lines #L96 - L97 were not covered by tests
[warning] 100-101: req.go#L100-L101
Added lines #L100 - L101 were not covered by tests
[warning] 104-105: req.go#L104-L105
Added lines #L104 - L105 were not covered by tests
[warning] 108-109: req.go#L108-L109
Added lines #L108 - L109 were not covered by tests
🔇 Additional comments (7)
res_interface_gen.go (1)
1-27: Well-structured response interface with Express-like API
The interface provides a comprehensive set of response methods that align well with Express.js conventions while maintaining idiomatic Go patterns. The method chaining pattern (Status, Type) is particularly useful for fluent API usage.
Let's verify the Express.js alignment:
✅ Verification successful
Express-like API alignment confirmed with proper method chaining
The verification confirms that:
- The interface closely mirrors Express.js's response methods with Go-idiomatic naming (e.g.,
SendStatus,SendFile,JSON, etc.) - Method chaining is correctly implemented in
StatusandTypemethods, returningResinterface for fluent API usage - The implementation in
DefaultResproperly delegates to the context while maintaining the chaining pattern
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Compare method names with Express.js response methods
# Create a list of Express response methods from their documentation
echo "Express.js response methods:" > express_methods.txt
curl -s https://expressjs.com/en/4x/api.html | grep -o 'res\.[a-zA-Z]*' | sort -u >> express_methods.txt
# List our response methods
echo "Our response methods:" > our_methods.txt
rg '^[[:space:]]+[A-Z][a-zA-Z]+\(' res_interface_gen.go | sed 's/(.*//' | tr -d '\t' >> our_methods.txt
# Compare the lists
diff express_methods.txt our_methods.txt
Length of output: 927
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's verify the method chaining pattern mentioned in the review
ast-grep --pattern 'func ($var *$type) Status(status int) Res'
ast-grep --pattern 'func ($var *$type) Type(extension string, charset ...string) Res'
# Let's also check the actual implementation to verify Express-like behavior
rg -A 3 'func \(\w+ \*\w+\) (Status|Type|JSON|Send)' .
Length of output: 5872
req_interface_gen.go (1)
1-33: Well-designed request interface with comprehensive functionality
The interface provides a complete set of request handling methods with consistent signatures and good practices:
- Optional parameters using variadic arguments (defaultValue ...string)
- Clear method names that align with Express.js conventions
- Comprehensive coverage of HTTP request aspects (headers, body, params, etc.)
Let's verify the Express.js alignment:
✅ Verification successful
Interface aligns well with Express.js request API with appropriate Go adaptations
The verification confirms that the interface closely mirrors Express.js's request API with proper Go-style adaptations:
- Method names follow Go conventions (e.g.,
XHRinstead ofxhr,BaseURLinstead ofbaseUrl) - Core request methods are present (accepts, body, cookies, params, query, etc.)
- Intentionally omits Express.js-specific features not applicable to Go (e.g.,
req.app,req.connection,req.user) - Maintains consistent parameter patterns using Go idioms (variadic arguments for optional values)
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Compare method names with Express.js request methods
# Create a list of Express request methods from their documentation
echo "Express.js request methods:" > express_methods.txt
curl -s https://expressjs.com/en/4x/api.html | grep -o 'req\.[a-zA-Z]*' | sort -u >> express_methods.txt
# List our request methods
echo "Our request methods:" > our_methods.txt
rg '^[[:space:]]+[A-Z][a-zA-Z]+\(' req_interface_gen.go | sed 's/(.*//' | tr -d '\t' >> our_methods.txt
# Compare the lists
diff express_methods.txt our_methods.txt
Length of output: 1120
ctx_interface.go (1)
38-39: Migration required: Update Request() and Response() method calls
The codebase still contains numerous references to the old Request() and Response() methods that need to be updated to use the new Req() and Res() methods. This is a breaking change that requires careful migration.
Let's verify the remaining usage:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find remaining usage of old methods
# Search for method calls
echo "Files still using old methods:"
rg --type go 'Request\(\)|Response\(\)' --glob '!ctx_interface.go'
# Count occurrences
echo -e "\nTotal occurrences:"
rg --type go 'Request\(\)|Response\(\)' --glob '!ctx_interface.go' | wc -lres.go (1)
4-6: LGTM! Clean implementation of the response API wrapper.
The DefaultRes struct correctly implements the delegation pattern, maintaining a clean separation of concerns while preserving the underlying functionality.
req.go (1)
4-6: LGTM! Clean implementation of the request API wrapper.
The DefaultReq struct correctly implements the delegation pattern, providing a clear separation between request-specific operations and the broader context.
ctx_interface_gen.go (1)
268-273: LGTM! Interface changes align with PR objectives.
The addition of Req() and Res() methods to the Ctx interface properly supports the new API structure, enabling better separation of concerns between request and response operations.
ctx.go (1)
57-58: LGTM! Well-structured field additions
The new fields are properly documented and follow Go naming conventions. Using pointer types is appropriate here for reference types.
|
|
||
| // Res | ||
| type Res interface { | ||
| Locals(key any, value ...any) any |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider moving Locals method back to Ctx interface
Based on the PR discussion, the Locals method was intended to remain in the Ctx interface as it doesn't inherently relate to the response or request.
| req: &DefaultReq{}, | ||
| res: &DefaultRes{}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fix initialization of req and res fields
The current initialization creates empty structs without setting the context reference. This will likely cause issues when methods try to access the context.
Apply this diff to properly initialize the fields:
- req: &DefaultReq{},
- res: &DefaultRes{},
+ req: &DefaultReq{ctx: c},
+ res: &DefaultRes{ctx: c},📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| req: &DefaultReq{}, | |
| res: &DefaultRes{}, | |
| req: &DefaultReq{ctx: c}, | |
| res: &DefaultRes{ctx: c}, |
res.go
Outdated
| package fiber | ||
|
|
||
| //go:generate ifacemaker --file res.go --struct DefaultRes --iface Res --pkg fiber --output res_interface_gen.go --not-exported true --iface-comment "Res" | ||
| type DefaultRes struct { | ||
| ctx *DefaultCtx | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Locals(key any, value ...any) any { | ||
| return r.ctx.Locals(key, value...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Append(field string, values ...string) { | ||
| r.ctx.Append(field, values...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Attachment(filename ...string) { | ||
| r.ctx.Attachment(filename...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) AutoFormat(body any) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.AutoFormat(body) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Cookie(cookie *Cookie) { | ||
| r.ctx.Cookie(cookie) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) ClearCookie(key ...string) { | ||
| r.ctx.ClearCookie(key...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Download(file string, filename ...string) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.Download(file, filename...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Format(handlers ...ResFmt) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.Format(handlers...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Get(key string, defaultValue ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.GetRespHeader(key, defaultValue...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) JSON(body any) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.JSON(body) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) JSONP(data any, callback ...string) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.JSONP(data, callback...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Links(link ...string) { | ||
| r.ctx.Links(link...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Location(path string) { | ||
| r.ctx.Location(path) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Render(name string, bind Map, layouts ...string) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.Render(name, bind, layouts...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Send(body []byte) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.Send(body) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) SendFile(file string, config ...SendFile) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.SendFile(file, config...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) SendStatus(status int) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.SendStatus(status) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Set(key, val string) { | ||
| r.ctx.Set(key, val) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Status(status int) Res { | ||
| r.ctx.Status(status) | ||
| return r | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Type(extension string, charset ...string) Res { | ||
| r.ctx.Type(extension, charset...) | ||
| return r | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add unit tests for the response API methods.
The static analysis indicates that the new response API methods lack test coverage. This is critical for ensuring the delegation pattern works correctly and maintaining reliability during future changes.
Would you like me to help generate comprehensive unit tests for these methods?
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 8-9: res.go#L8-L9
Added lines #L8 - L9 were not covered by tests
[warning] 12-13: res.go#L12-L13
Added lines #L12 - L13 were not covered by tests
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) AcceptsCharsets(offers ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.AcceptsCharsets(offers...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) AcceptsEncodings(offers ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.AcceptsEncodings(offers...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) AcceptsLanguages(offers ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.AcceptsLanguages(offers...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) BaseURL() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.BaseURL() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Body() []byte { | ||
| return r.ctx.Body() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Cookies(key string, defaultValue ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Cookies(key, defaultValue...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Fresh() bool { | ||
| return r.ctx.Fresh() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Get(key string, defaultValue ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Get(key, defaultValue...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Host() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Host() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Hostname() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Hostname() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) IP() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.IP() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Is(extension string) bool { | ||
| return r.ctx.Is(extension) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) IPs() []string { | ||
| return r.ctx.IPs() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Method() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Method() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) OriginalURL() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.OriginalURL() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Params(key string, defaultValue ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Params(key, defaultValue...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Path() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Path() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Protocol() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Protocol() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Query(key string, defaultValue ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Query(key, defaultValue...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Range(size int) (Range, error) { | ||
| return r.ctx.Range(size) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Route() *Route { | ||
| return r.ctx.Route() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Secure() bool { | ||
| return r.ctx.Secure() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Stale() bool { | ||
| return r.ctx.Stale() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Subdomains(offset ...int) []string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Subdomains(offset...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) XHR() bool { | ||
| return r.ctx.XHR() | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add unit tests for the request API methods.
The static analysis indicates that the new request API methods lack test coverage. Comprehensive testing is essential for validating the delegation behavior.
Would you like me to help generate comprehensive unit tests for these methods?
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 8-9: req.go#L8-L9
Added lines #L8 - L9 were not covered by tests
[warning] 12-13: req.go#L12-L13
Added lines #L12 - L13 were not covered by tests
[warning] 16-17: req.go#L16-L17
Added lines #L16 - L17 were not covered by tests
[warning] 20-21: req.go#L20-L21
Added lines #L20 - L21 were not covered by tests
[warning] 24-25: req.go#L24-L25
Added lines #L24 - L25 were not covered by tests
[warning] 28-29: req.go#L28-L29
Added lines #L28 - L29 were not covered by tests
[warning] 32-33: req.go#L32-L33
Added lines #L32 - L33 were not covered by tests
[warning] 36-37: req.go#L36-L37
Added lines #L36 - L37 were not covered by tests
[warning] 40-41: req.go#L40-L41
Added lines #L40 - L41 were not covered by tests
[warning] 44-45: req.go#L44-L45
Added lines #L44 - L45 were not covered by tests
[warning] 48-49: req.go#L48-L49
Added lines #L48 - L49 were not covered by tests
[warning] 52-53: req.go#L52-L53
Added lines #L52 - L53 were not covered by tests
[warning] 56-57: req.go#L56-L57
Added lines #L56 - L57 were not covered by tests
[warning] 60-61: req.go#L60-L61
Added lines #L60 - L61 were not covered by tests
[warning] 64-65: req.go#L64-L65
Added lines #L64 - L65 were not covered by tests
[warning] 68-69: req.go#L68-L69
Added lines #L68 - L69 were not covered by tests
[warning] 72-73: req.go#L72-L73
Added lines #L72 - L73 were not covered by tests
[warning] 76-77: req.go#L76-L77
Added lines #L76 - L77 were not covered by tests
[warning] 80-81: req.go#L80-L81
Added lines #L80 - L81 were not covered by tests
[warning] 84-85: req.go#L84-L85
Added lines #L84 - L85 were not covered by tests
[warning] 88-89: req.go#L88-L89
Added lines #L88 - L89 were not covered by tests
[warning] 92-93: req.go#L92-L93
Added lines #L92 - L93 were not covered by tests
[warning] 96-97: req.go#L96-L97
Added lines #L96 - L97 were not covered by tests
[warning] 100-101: req.go#L100-L101
Added lines #L100 - L101 were not covered by tests
[warning] 104-105: req.go#L104-L105
Added lines #L104 - L105 were not covered by tests
[warning] 108-109: req.go#L108-L109
Added lines #L108 - L109 were not covered by tests
Split the existing Ctx API into two separate APIs for Requests and Responses. There are two goals to this change: 1. Reduce cognitive load by making it more obvious whether a Ctx method interacts with the request or the response. 2. Increase API parity with Express.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 5
🧹 Nitpick comments (5)
res_interface_gen.go (1)
6-30: Consider adding interface documentation.The
Resinterface would benefit from documentation describing its purpose and relationship with Express's response API. This would help users understand the new API structure.res.go (1)
44-46: Consider renaming method for clarity.The
Getmethod internally callsGetRespHeader, which is more descriptive. Consider renaming this method toGetHeaderto better reflect its purpose and maintain consistency with the internal implementation.-func (r *DefaultRes) Get(key string, defaultValue ...string) string { +func (r *DefaultRes) GetHeader(key string, defaultValue ...string) string { return r.ctx.GetRespHeader(key, defaultValue...) }req.go (2)
32-34: Add documentation for ambiguous parameter.The
defaultValueparameter in theCookiesmethod (and similar methods) would benefit from documentation explaining when it's used and what happens when multiple default values are provided.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 32-33: req.go#L32-L33
Added lines #L32 - L33 were not covered by tests
88-90: Consider error wrapping for better context.The
Rangemethod could benefit from wrapping the error with additional context about the request.func (r *DefaultReq) Range(size int) (Range, error) { - return r.ctx.Range(size) + rng, err := r.ctx.Range(size) + if err != nil { + return rng, fmt.Errorf("failed to parse range header: %w", err) + } + return rng, nil }🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 88-89: req.go#L88-L89
Added lines #L88 - L89 were not covered by testsctx.go (1)
1468-1478: Consider adding examples in documentationThe documentation for both
Req()andRes()methods could be enhanced with usage examples to help developers understand how to use these new APIs effectively.Consider adding examples like:
// Example: // // app.Get("/", func(c fiber.Ctx) error { // // Access request-specific operations // body := c.Req().Body() // // // Access response-specific operations // c.Res().Status(200) // return nil // })🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 1470-1471: ctx.go#L1470-L1471
Added lines #L1470 - L1471 were not covered by tests
[warning] 1476-1477: ctx.go#L1476-L1477
Added lines #L1476 - L1477 were not covered by tests
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
ctx.go(2 hunks)ctx_interface.go(1 hunks)ctx_interface_gen.go(1 hunks)req.go(1 hunks)req_interface_gen.go(1 hunks)res.go(1 hunks)res_interface_gen.go(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- ctx_interface_gen.go
- ctx_interface.go
- req_interface_gen.go
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
ctx.go
[warning] 1470-1471: ctx.go#L1470-L1471
Added lines #L1470 - L1471 were not covered by tests
[warning] 1476-1477: ctx.go#L1476-L1477
Added lines #L1476 - L1477 were not covered by tests
res.go
[warning] 8-9: res.go#L8-L9
Added lines #L8 - L9 were not covered by tests
[warning] 12-13: res.go#L12-L13
Added lines #L12 - L13 were not covered by tests
req.go
[warning] 8-9: req.go#L8-L9
Added lines #L8 - L9 were not covered by tests
[warning] 12-13: req.go#L12-L13
Added lines #L12 - L13 were not covered by tests
[warning] 16-17: req.go#L16-L17
Added lines #L16 - L17 were not covered by tests
[warning] 20-21: req.go#L20-L21
Added lines #L20 - L21 were not covered by tests
[warning] 24-25: req.go#L24-L25
Added lines #L24 - L25 were not covered by tests
[warning] 28-29: req.go#L28-L29
Added lines #L28 - L29 were not covered by tests
[warning] 32-33: req.go#L32-L33
Added lines #L32 - L33 were not covered by tests
[warning] 36-37: req.go#L36-L37
Added lines #L36 - L37 were not covered by tests
[warning] 40-41: req.go#L40-L41
Added lines #L40 - L41 were not covered by tests
[warning] 44-45: req.go#L44-L45
Added lines #L44 - L45 were not covered by tests
[warning] 48-49: req.go#L48-L49
Added lines #L48 - L49 were not covered by tests
[warning] 52-53: req.go#L52-L53
Added lines #L52 - L53 were not covered by tests
[warning] 56-57: req.go#L56-L57
Added lines #L56 - L57 were not covered by tests
[warning] 60-61: req.go#L60-L61
Added lines #L60 - L61 were not covered by tests
[warning] 64-65: req.go#L64-L65
Added lines #L64 - L65 were not covered by tests
[warning] 68-69: req.go#L68-L69
Added lines #L68 - L69 were not covered by tests
[warning] 72-73: req.go#L72-L73
Added lines #L72 - L73 were not covered by tests
[warning] 76-77: req.go#L76-L77
Added lines #L76 - L77 were not covered by tests
[warning] 80-81: req.go#L80-L81
Added lines #L80 - L81 were not covered by tests
[warning] 84-85: req.go#L84-L85
Added lines #L84 - L85 were not covered by tests
[warning] 88-89: req.go#L88-L89
Added lines #L88 - L89 were not covered by tests
[warning] 92-93: req.go#L92-L93
Added lines #L92 - L93 were not covered by tests
[warning] 96-97: req.go#L96-L97
Added lines #L96 - L97 were not covered by tests
[warning] 100-101: req.go#L100-L101
Added lines #L100 - L101 were not covered by tests
[warning] 104-105: req.go#L104-L105
Added lines #L104 - L105 were not covered by tests
[warning] 108-109: req.go#L108-L109
Added lines #L108 - L109 were not covered by tests
🔇 Additional comments (2)
res_interface_gen.go (1)
7-7: Move Locals method back to Ctx interface.
Based on the PR discussion, the Locals method was intended to remain in the Ctx interface as it doesn't inherently relate to the response or request.
ctx.go (1)
57-58: LGTM! Fields are properly defined
The new fields req and res are correctly defined as pointers to DefaultReq and DefaultRes respectively, which aligns with the PR objective of splitting the Ctx API.
| type DefaultRes struct { | ||
| ctx *DefaultCtx | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Locals(key any, value ...any) any { | ||
| return r.ctx.Locals(key, value...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Append(field string, values ...string) { | ||
| r.ctx.Append(field, values...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Attachment(filename ...string) { | ||
| r.ctx.Attachment(filename...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) AutoFormat(body any) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.AutoFormat(body) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) CBOR(body any, ctype ...string) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.CBOR(body, ctype...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Cookie(cookie *Cookie) { | ||
| r.ctx.Cookie(cookie) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) ClearCookie(key ...string) { | ||
| r.ctx.ClearCookie(key...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Download(file string, filename ...string) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.Download(file, filename...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Format(handlers ...ResFmt) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.Format(handlers...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Get(key string, defaultValue ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.GetRespHeader(key, defaultValue...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) JSON(body any, ctype ...string) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.JSON(body, ctype...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) JSONP(data any, callback ...string) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.JSONP(data, callback...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Links(link ...string) { | ||
| r.ctx.Links(link...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Location(path string) { | ||
| r.ctx.Location(path) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Render(name string, bind Map, layouts ...string) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.Render(name, bind, layouts...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Send(body []byte) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.Send(body) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) SendFile(file string, config ...SendFile) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.SendFile(file, config...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) SendStatus(status int) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.SendStatus(status) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Set(key, val string) { | ||
| r.ctx.Set(key, val) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Status(status int) Res { | ||
| r.ctx.Status(status) | ||
| return r | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Type(extension string, charset ...string) Res { | ||
| r.ctx.Type(extension, charset...) | ||
| return r | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) Vary(fields ...string) { | ||
| r.ctx.Vary(fields...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultRes) XML(data any) error { | ||
| return r.ctx.XML(data) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add unit tests for the response API methods.
The static analysis indicates that the new response API methods lack test coverage. This is critical for ensuring the delegation pattern works correctly and maintaining reliability during future changes.
Would you like me to help generate comprehensive unit tests for these methods?
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 8-9: res.go#L8-L9
Added lines #L8 - L9 were not covered by tests
[warning] 12-13: res.go#L12-L13
Added lines #L12 - L13 were not covered by tests
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) AcceptsCharsets(offers ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.AcceptsCharsets(offers...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) AcceptsEncodings(offers ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.AcceptsEncodings(offers...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) AcceptsLanguages(offers ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.AcceptsLanguages(offers...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) BaseURL() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.BaseURL() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Body() []byte { | ||
| return r.ctx.Body() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Cookies(key string, defaultValue ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Cookies(key, defaultValue...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Fresh() bool { | ||
| return r.ctx.Fresh() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Get(key string, defaultValue ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Get(key, defaultValue...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Host() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Host() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Hostname() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Hostname() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) IP() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.IP() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Is(extension string) bool { | ||
| return r.ctx.Is(extension) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) IPs() []string { | ||
| return r.ctx.IPs() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Method() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Method() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) OriginalURL() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.OriginalURL() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Params(key string, defaultValue ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Params(key, defaultValue...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Path() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Path() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Protocol() string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Protocol() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Query(key string, defaultValue ...string) string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Query(key, defaultValue...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Range(size int) (Range, error) { | ||
| return r.ctx.Range(size) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Route() *Route { | ||
| return r.ctx.Route() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Secure() bool { | ||
| return r.ctx.Secure() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Stale() bool { | ||
| return r.ctx.Stale() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) Subdomains(offset ...int) []string { | ||
| return r.ctx.Subdomains(offset...) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (r *DefaultReq) XHR() bool { | ||
| return r.ctx.XHR() | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add unit tests for the request API methods.
The static analysis indicates that the new request API methods lack test coverage. Comprehensive testing is essential for validating the delegation behavior.
Would you like me to help generate comprehensive unit tests for these methods?
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 8-9: req.go#L8-L9
Added lines #L8 - L9 were not covered by tests
[warning] 12-13: req.go#L12-L13
Added lines #L12 - L13 were not covered by tests
[warning] 16-17: req.go#L16-L17
Added lines #L16 - L17 were not covered by tests
[warning] 20-21: req.go#L20-L21
Added lines #L20 - L21 were not covered by tests
[warning] 24-25: req.go#L24-L25
Added lines #L24 - L25 were not covered by tests
[warning] 28-29: req.go#L28-L29
Added lines #L28 - L29 were not covered by tests
[warning] 32-33: req.go#L32-L33
Added lines #L32 - L33 were not covered by tests
[warning] 36-37: req.go#L36-L37
Added lines #L36 - L37 were not covered by tests
[warning] 40-41: req.go#L40-L41
Added lines #L40 - L41 were not covered by tests
[warning] 44-45: req.go#L44-L45
Added lines #L44 - L45 were not covered by tests
[warning] 48-49: req.go#L48-L49
Added lines #L48 - L49 were not covered by tests
[warning] 52-53: req.go#L52-L53
Added lines #L52 - L53 were not covered by tests
[warning] 56-57: req.go#L56-L57
Added lines #L56 - L57 were not covered by tests
[warning] 60-61: req.go#L60-L61
Added lines #L60 - L61 were not covered by tests
[warning] 64-65: req.go#L64-L65
Added lines #L64 - L65 were not covered by tests
[warning] 68-69: req.go#L68-L69
Added lines #L68 - L69 were not covered by tests
[warning] 72-73: req.go#L72-L73
Added lines #L72 - L73 were not covered by tests
[warning] 76-77: req.go#L76-L77
Added lines #L76 - L77 were not covered by tests
[warning] 80-81: req.go#L80-L81
Added lines #L80 - L81 were not covered by tests
[warning] 84-85: req.go#L84-L85
Added lines #L84 - L85 were not covered by tests
[warning] 88-89: req.go#L88-L89
Added lines #L88 - L89 were not covered by tests
[warning] 92-93: req.go#L92-L93
Added lines #L92 - L93 were not covered by tests
[warning] 96-97: req.go#L96-L97
Added lines #L96 - L97 were not covered by tests
[warning] 100-101: req.go#L100-L101
Added lines #L100 - L101 were not covered by tests
[warning] 104-105: req.go#L104-L105
Added lines #L104 - L105 were not covered by tests
[warning] 108-109: req.go#L108-L109
Added lines #L108 - L109 were not covered by tests
| type DefaultReq struct { | ||
| ctx *DefaultCtx | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛠️ Refactor suggestion
Consider adding validation for ctx field.
The DefaultReq struct should validate that the ctx field is not nil during initialization to prevent potential panics.
type DefaultReq struct {
ctx *DefaultCtx
}
+
+func NewDefaultReq(ctx *DefaultCtx) (*DefaultReq, error) {
+ if ctx == nil {
+ return nil, errors.New("context cannot be nil")
+ }
+ return &DefaultReq{ctx: ctx}, nil
+}Committable suggestion skipped: line range outside the PR's diff.
| // Res returns a convenience type whose API is limited to operations | ||
| // on the outgoing response. | ||
| func (c *DefaultCtx) Res() Res { | ||
| return c.res | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Add test coverage for the Res() method
The review comment is correct. The codebase search reveals that while there are interface and implementation definitions for Res, there is no direct test coverage for the Res() method of DefaultCtx. A test should be added to verify that:
- The method returns the internal
resfield - The returned value implements the
Resinterface - Operations on the returned value affect the context's response
🔗 Analysis chain
Add test coverage for the Res() method
While the implementation is correct and the documentation is clear, test coverage is missing for this method. Please add unit tests to ensure the method correctly returns the res field.
Would you like me to help generate unit tests for this method?
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify test coverage for Res() method
# Test: Search for test cases covering Res(). Expect: Test cases for the method.
rg --type go 'func Test.*Res\(' app/
Length of output: 83
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# First, let's find the correct location of test files
fd -e go test
# Then search for any existing test coverage of Res() method
rg --type go 'func Test.*Res\('
# Also search for any usage of Res() in test files to catch potential indirect testing
rg --type go '\.Res\(' -g '*test.go'
Length of output: 2109
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check ctx_test.go specifically since Res() is defined in ctx.go
cat ctx_test.go | grep -A 10 -B 10 "Res()"
# Also check for any indirect testing of the response functionality
rg --type go "c\.res\b" ctx_test.go
# Let's also look for any tests that might be using the Res type
rg --type go "type.*Res\b" -A 5
Length of output: 620
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 1476-1477: ctx.go#L1476-L1477
Added lines #L1476 - L1477 were not covered by tests
| // Res returns a convenience type whose API is limited to operations | ||
| // on the incoming request. | ||
| func (c *DefaultCtx) Req() Req { | ||
| return c.req | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codebase verification
Add test coverage for the Req() method
The method needs test coverage to ensure it correctly returns the req field. Here's a suggested test structure:
- Add a test case in
ctx_test.gothat:- Creates a new DefaultCtx instance
- Sets a known request value
- Calls Req() and verifies it returns the expected request
- Verifies that modifications to the returned request reflect in the context
🔗 Analysis chain
Add test coverage for the Req() method
While the implementation is correct and the documentation is clear, test coverage is missing for this method. Please add unit tests to ensure the method correctly returns the req field.
Would you like me to help generate unit tests for this method?
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify test coverage for Req() method
# Test: Search for test cases covering Req(). Expect: Test cases for the method.
rg --type go 'func Test.*Req\(' app/
Length of output: 83
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# First, let's find the correct location of test files
fd -e go test
# Then search for existing test cases for Req() method
rg --type go 'func Test.*Req\('
# Also search for any usage of Req() in test files to catch cases where it might be tested as part of other test cases
rg --type go -g '*_test.go' '\.Req\(\)'
Length of output: 2112
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's check ctx_test.go specifically since it should contain tests for DefaultCtx
cat ctx_test.go | grep -A 20 -B 20 'Req()'
# Also let's verify if there are any indirect tests of Req() method
rg -g '*_test.go' -B 5 -A 5 'req :?= .*Req\(\)'
# Let's also check the implementation to understand the testing needs better
ast-grep --pattern 'func (c *DefaultCtx) Req() Req'
Length of output: 233
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 1470-1471: ctx.go#L1470-L1471
Added lines #L1470 - L1471 were not covered by tests
CURRENT STATUS
Description
Split the existing Ctx API into two separate APIs for Requests and Responses. Having distinct APIs for Request and Response types will allow developers to more easily write self-documenting code by avoiding ambiguous methods such as
Ctx.CookieandCtx.Cookies. Much of the existing Ctx API simply calls the corresponding Req or Res API. For example,Ctx.GetcallsRequest.GetandCtx.SetcallsResponse.Set.Because Express defines only res and req APIs with no context API, this change will make it easier to manage Fiber's adherence to Express's APIs. In addition, it will allow us to avoid needing to create certain one-off methods. For example,
Ctx.GetRespHeadercan now becomeCtx.Res().GetAlthough the majority of the Ctx API is unchanged,
Ctx.RequestandCtx.Responsehave been removed in favor ofCtx.ReqandCtx.Res. Now, instead of a rawfasthttp.Requestorfasthttp.Response, we returnfiber.Requestandfiber.Responseobjects, which implement their respective APIs. As such, this is a breaking change for users who accessCtx.RequestandCtx.Responsedirect.Inspired by Koa and fasthttp, both of which have individual request/response objects and a single context object whose methods are simply aliases for corresponding methods on the req/res APIs.
Deprecation:
Ctx.GetRespHeaderis replaced byCtx.Res().GetRelated to #2854
Changes introduced
List the new features or adjustments introduced in this pull request. Provide details on benchmarks, documentation updates, changelog entries, and if applicable, the migration guide.
Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
Checklist
Before you submit your pull request, please make sure you meet these requirements:
/docs/directory for Fiber's documentation.