Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add testing to the proxy #2007
Add testing to the proxy #2007
Changes from 6 commits
3a5c4e2
7176161
c7e7886
b763161
3d982e9
2e873c5
7eced21
bfb4d4b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just a quick question.
Why instead of using a []struct, you use a map[string]struct where the key of the map is the test name and the value of the map is the struct you already have. This provides some benefits like:
More info in Dave Cheney blog, "Give your test cases names" section (or just look for "We can dry this up, even more, using a map literal syntax:").
This is just a comment, I would not reject this PR for that reason but don't feel enough confident to approve it either. 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I actually followed a recommendation from Mikalai from another PR. But this is a pattern that we have in most (if not all) other test files too.
The test cases will have a
#0X
appended to them if they have the same name in the struct. So it would probably be something we would lose with the map because the test would be overwritten, and we'd have to manually add the numbers to each of those. (now I actually don't know if having multiple subtests with the same name is something we want to have, so I'd wait for someone with more experience to weigh in)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is interesting. We shouldn't have to nest test cases as your test cases would evolve into something like the below. It shouldn't require an
#0X
appended as long as the names of the tests are different.That being said, I'm fine conforming to our current standard. Definitely something I would approve if it was changed going forward as well though. It is a small addition of DRY