🧹 chore: Add URI Test case for Test_Ctx_Binders

[ReneWerner87]

No description provided.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The test function Test_Ctx_Binders was updated to use uri struct tags instead of params for URI parameter binding. The previously skipped subtest for URI binding was enabled, fully implemented, and now verifies correct binding of URI parameters to struct fields in the test context.

Changes

File(s)	Change Summary
ctx_test.go	Updated struct tags from params to uri; enabled and implemented the "URI" subtest for binding URI parameters to struct fields; added assertions to verify correct binding.

Poem

In the warren of tests, a change took root,
URI tags now guide the route.
Skipped no more, the binding's clear,
Struct fields filled with values dear.
Hopping forward, tests run true—
A rabbit’s cheer for code anew! 🐇

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0c6283f and 9f08cf3.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• ctx_test.go (2 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (6)

• GitHub Check: Compare
• GitHub Check: unit (1.24.x, macos-13)
• GitHub Check: unit (1.24.x, macos-latest)
• GitHub Check: unit (1.23.x, windows-latest)
• GitHub Check: unit (1.24.x, windows-latest)
• GitHub Check: repeated

🔇 Additional comments (3)

ctx_test.go (3)

1403-1403: LGTM: Struct tag updated for URI binding

The change from params:"name2" to uri:"name2" is correct for URI parameter binding functionality.

---

1406-1406: LGTM: Struct tag updated for URI binding

The change from params:"class2" to uri:"class2" is correct for URI parameter binding functionality.

---

1473-1490: Well-implemented URI binding test

The URI subtest implementation looks comprehensive and follows good testing practices:

• Properly sets up the context with route parameters and values
• Tests URI binding with c.Bind().URI(testStruct)
• Verifies all expected field mappings including defaults
• Correctly expects Names to be nil since embedded structs with query tags aren't populated by URI binding

The manual setup of route and values is appropriate for testing URI binding specifically.

✨ Finishing Touches

• 📝 Generate Docstrings

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Explain this complex logic.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai explain this code block.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and explain its main purpose.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Support

Need help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions.

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)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR.
• @coderabbitai generate sequence diagram to generate a sequence diagram of the changes in this PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR enhances the existing Test_Ctx_Binders suite by adding support for URI parameter binding.

• Updated TestStruct tags to include uri mappings instead of params.
• Replaced the skipped URI test with an active test that sets up a DefaultCtx and asserts correct binding.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (3)

ctx_test.go:1484

• Consider adding negative test cases for Bind().URI, such as supplying a non-integer value for an int field to verify that parsing errors are handled correctly.

require.NoError(t, c.Bind().URI(testStruct))

ctx_test.go:1479

• It may be helpful to add a test for mismatched parameter counts (e.g., fewer or more Params than expected) to ensure Bind().URI returns an appropriate error.

c.route = &Route{Params: []string{"name", "name2", "class", "class2"}}

ctx_test.go:1474

• Verify that app.AcquireCtx/ReleaseCtx are safe to use in parallel tests, or consider removing t.Parallel() if shared resources could cause race conditions.

t.Parallel()

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.35%. Comparing base (9bd7a1c) to head (9f08cf3).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3480   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   84.35%   84.35%           
=======================================
  Files         120      120           
  Lines       12190    12190           
=======================================
  Hits        10283    10283           
  Misses       1477     1477           
  Partials      430      430           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	84.35% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[gaby]

👍 LGTM