V2 to v3 merge

[ReneWerner87]

Bring changes from v2 branch to main (v3) branch.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated contribution guidelines and pull request templates for clarity and consistency.
  • Revised documentation to reflect functionality changes, warnings, validations, and clarifications across various components.
• New Features
  • Introduced changes to handle redirects with query parameters more effectively.
  • Enhanced logging capabilities with panic triggers for specific log levels and inclusion of IP and error tags in logs.
• Bug Fixes
  • Fixed a syntax error in a script related to release events.
  • Corrected grammar in contribution guidelines.
• Refactor
  • Systematic update in context acquisition methods across the application and tests, shifting from NewCtx to AcquireCtx.
  • Simplified timeout handling logic by modifying function parameters and removing deprecated features.
• Tests
  • Updated test cases to reflect changes in context management, logging, and middleware configurations.
  • Removed outdated comments and adjusted request handling in test setups.
• Chores
  • Excluded specific linters from running on test files for improved code quality checks.

[renanbastos93]

Great job done by @gofiber/contributors and @gofiber/maintainers! Congratulations to all involved. I have a few comments to add. See you later!

[gaby]

Besides this, I dont see anything that sticks out that hasnt been mentioned before

[ReneWerner87]

@coderabbitai review

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Rate Limit Exceeded

@ReneWerner87 has exceeded the limit for the number of commits or files that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 16 minutes and 23 seconds before requesting another review.

How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.
Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.
Please see our FAQ for further information.

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between ab2b0fc and ac64308.

Walkthrough

These updates focus on enhancing code clarity, consistency, and error handling across various components of a project. Key improvements include grammar corrections in contribution guidelines, clearer pull request templates, syntax fixes in scripts, and refined context management in Go files. Middleware tests and documentation have also been updated to reflect these changes, ensuring a more robust and maintainable codebase.

Changes

Files	Summary
.github/CONTRIBUTING.md, .github/pull_request_template.md	Updated guidelines and templates for contributions and pull requests.
.github/scripts/sync_docs.sh	Fixed syntax error in release event handling script.
.golangci.yml	Excluded specific linters for test files.
app.go, app_test.go, bind_test.go, ctx_interface.go, middleware/.../adaptor.go, middleware/.../adaptor_test.go, middleware/.../basicauth_test.go to middleware/.../session/store_test.go	Improved context acquisition and resource management. Adjusted test setups and assertions.
middleware/logger/..., middleware/redirect/..., middleware/timeout/..., log/default.go, log/default_test.go	Enhanced logging, redirect handling, and timeout management.
docs/api/..., docs/guide/hooks.md	Updated documentation to reflect functional changes and clarifications.

🐇✨
Changes abound, both big and small,
In code and docs, we've touched them all.
From tests to scripts, we've made our mark,
Ensuring clarity, in light and dark.
So here's a cheer from this small rabbit,
For code more robust - grab and nab it!
🎉🐾

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?

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>.
  • Generate unit-tests for this file.
• 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 generate unit tests for this file.
  • @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 generate interesting stats about this repository from git and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit tests.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.

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 as PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger a review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• The JSON schema for the configuration file is available here.
• 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/coderabbit-overrides.v2.json

CodeRabbit Discord Community

Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.

[coderabbitai]

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 24

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 8c413d0 and 639f552.

Files selected for processing (40)

• .github/CONTRIBUTING.md (1 hunks)
• .github/pull_request_template.md (3 hunks)
• .github/scripts/sync_docs.sh (1 hunks)
• app.go (2 hunks)
• app_test.go (4 hunks)
• bind_test.go (37 hunks)
• ctx_interface.go (3 hunks)
• ctx_test.go (197 hunks)
• docs/api/app.md (2 hunks)
• docs/api/ctx.md (2 hunks)
• docs/api/middleware/cors.md (2 hunks)
• docs/api/middleware/encryptcookie.md (4 hunks)
• docs/api/middleware/healthcheck.md (1 hunks)
• docs/api/middleware/logger.md (1 hunks)
• docs/api/middleware/timeout.md (5 hunks)
• docs/guide/hooks.md (5 hunks)
• log/default.go (3 hunks)
• log/default_test.go (5 hunks)
• middleware/adaptor/adaptor.go (3 hunks)
• middleware/adaptor/adaptor_test.go (8 hunks)
• middleware/cors/cors.go (5 hunks)
• middleware/cors/cors_test.go (7 hunks)
• middleware/cors/utils.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/cors/utils_test.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/csrf/csrf_test.go (6 hunks)
• middleware/encryptcookie/config.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/healthcheck/config.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/healthcheck/healthcheck.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/healthcheck/healthcheck_test.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/logger/config.go (2 hunks)
• middleware/logger/tags.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/redirect/redirect.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/redirect/redirect_test.go (2 hunks)
• middleware/session/session_test.go (16 hunks)
• middleware/session/store_test.go (5 hunks)
• middleware/timeout/timeout.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/timeout/timeout_test.go (2 hunks)
• redirect_test.go (19 hunks)
• router.go (1 hunks)
• router_test.go (2 hunks)

Files not summarized due to errors (1)

• ctx_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit

Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (3)

• .github/CONTRIBUTING.md
• .github/pull_request_template.md
• docs/api/middleware/encryptcookie.md

Additional comments: 115

middleware/timeout/timeout.go (3)

• 11-12: The introduction of custom errors in the New function enhances the middleware's flexibility, allowing developers to specify which errors should trigger a fiber.ErrRequestTimeout response. This is a positive change that improves the middleware's usability in diverse scenarios.
• 12-12: The removal of the once synchronization and deprecation notice, as mentioned in the summary, simplifies the middleware's logic. This change likely improves the readability and maintainability of the code. However, it's important to ensure that the removal of once synchronization does not introduce any concurrency issues or regressions in functionality.
• 12-12: Simplifying the logic for handling timeouts by directly integrating timeout context creation within the New function streamlines the middleware's operation. This approach reduces complexity and enhances the middleware's performance by minimizing overhead.

middleware/redirect/redirect.go (1)

• 33-37: Appending the query string to the redirect URL if it exists is a valuable enhancement. It ensures that important query parameters are not lost during the redirection process. This change improves the middleware's usability and aligns with common expectations for redirect behavior.

middleware/encryptcookie/config.go (1)

• 39-39: Changing the Except field in the Config struct to an empty array by default is a sensible change that enhances security. By encrypting all cookies by default, it ensures that sensitive information is protected unless explicitly exempted. This change aligns with secure by default principles.

middleware/healthcheck/healthcheck.go (1)

• 9-62: The implementation of the health check middleware introduces a structured approach to managing liveness and readiness probes. The configuration options and the separation of concerns between liveness and readiness checks are well-designed. This addition enhances the framework's capabilities in production environments, especially in container orchestration systems where such probes are essential.

.github/scripts/sync_docs.sh (1)

• 29-30: Correcting the syntax error in the if statement related to handling a release event is a necessary fix that ensures the script functions as intended during release events. This change improves the reliability of the documentation synchronization process.

middleware/timeout/timeout_test.go (1)

• 20-20: Updating the test cases to use the New function instead of NewWithContext reflects the changes made to the timeout middleware. This ensures that the tests accurately assess the middleware's behavior with the updated implementation. It's important to verify that these changes cover all relevant timeout scenarios.

middleware/session/store_test.go (1)

• 25-25: Replacing app.NewCtx with app.AcquireCtx in the test cases aligns with the Fiber framework's context management best practices. This change likely improves the performance of the test suite by reusing context objects and reduces the overhead of context creation.

middleware/healthcheck/config.go (1)

• 7-84: The Config struct for the healthcheck middleware provides a comprehensive set of configuration options, including custom liveness and readiness probes and endpoints. The default settings ensure that the middleware can operate effectively with minimal configuration, which is beneficial for ease of use and quick setup. This design promotes flexibility and extensibility.

docs/api/middleware/timeout.md (1)

• 94-94: The documentation update provides a clear example of using the timeout middleware with custom errors, demonstrating the new capabilities introduced by the changes to the New function. This example enhances the documentation by showing a practical use case that leverages the middleware's updated functionality.

middleware/cors/utils.go (2)

• 15-44: Renaming matchSubdomain to validateDomain and updating its logic to handle wildcard subdomain patterns and normalize domains improves the middleware's flexibility and accuracy in domain matching. This enhancement is crucial for correctly implementing CORS policies, especially in scenarios involving subdomains. The approach taken here aligns with best practices for domain validation in CORS configurations.
• 61-84: The introduction of normalizeOrigin to validate and normalize origins is a valuable addition. It ensures that origins are correctly formatted and normalized before being used in CORS checks. This function enhances the middleware's robustness by preventing potential issues related to origin format inconsistencies.

docs/api/middleware/healthcheck.md (1)

• 1-106: The documentation for the healthcheck middleware effectively explains the purpose, configuration, and usage of the middleware. It provides clear examples and detailed configuration options, enabling users to easily understand how to implement liveness and readiness probes in their Fiber applications. This documentation is well-structured and comprehensive, covering all necessary aspects of the middleware.

middleware/logger/config.go (2)

• 31-31: The addition of ${ip} and ${error} to the default logging format enhances the logging capabilities by including IP address and error information, which can be crucial for debugging and monitoring. Ensure that the rest of the logging system is prepared to handle and display these new fields appropriately.
• 112-112: The update to defaultFormat to include ${ip} and ${error} aligns with the change in the Config struct's Format field. This ensures consistency in the default logging behavior across the application. It's a good practice to include such information for better traceability and debugging.

docs/guide/hooks.md (7)

• 38-38: Changing the receiver type from App to Hooks in the OnRoute function documentation correctly reflects the code changes. This update should help users understand the new way to use hooks within the framework.
• 50-50: The update in the OnName function documentation to use Hooks as the receiver type is accurate and aligns with the framework's evolution. It's important that the documentation keeps pace with such changes to avoid confusion.
• 107-107: The documentation change for the OnGroup function, specifying Hooks as the receiver, is clear and necessary for guiding users on the updated usage of hooks.
• 119-119: Updating the OnGroupName function documentation to reflect the receiver change to Hooks ensures consistency and clarity in the framework's documentation, aiding developers in correctly implementing hooks.
• 127-127: The OnListen function documentation update, indicating the change to Hooks as the receiver, is crucial for developers to understand the new hook implementation method. This change should be highlighted in migration guides for the version upgrade.
• 161-161: The documentation update for the OnFork function, showing Hooks as the new receiver type, is accurate and helps maintain the documentation's relevance and usefulness for developers.
• 169-169: Correctly updating the OnShutdown function documentation to use Hooks as the receiver type is essential for clear and accurate developer guidance on using hooks in the updated framework version.

middleware/adaptor/adaptor.go (3)

• 90-90: Setting the host in the request header using c.Request().Header.SetHost(r.Host) ensures that the host information is correctly propagated through the middleware. This is important for maintaining the integrity of the request information as it passes through different layers of the application.
• 143-143: Similarly, setting the host in the request header for the req instance with req.Header.SetHost(r.Host) is crucial for ensuring that the host information is accurately reflected in the converted request. This consistency is key for applications that rely on the host header for routing or other logic.
• 163-163: Switching from app.NewCtx(&fctx) to app.AcquireCtx(&fctx) for acquiring a context is a significant change. This likely reflects an optimization or a change in how contexts are managed within the application. It's important to ensure that this change does not introduce any unintended side effects, especially in terms of memory management or context reuse.

log/default.go (3)

• 34-36: Adding a panic trigger when the log level is LevelPanic in the privateLog method is a significant behavior change. This allows for immediate attention to critical issues but should be documented clearly to ensure developers are aware of the potential for panics in their applications due to logging calls.
• 60-62: Similarly, the addition of a panic trigger in the privateLogf method when the log level is LevelPanic aligns with the change in privateLog. It's crucial that this behavior is well-documented and that developers are made aware of how to use the panic log level appropriately.
• 101-103: The inclusion of a panic trigger in the privateLogw method for LevelPanic log level is consistent with the changes in the other logging methods. This consistency is good, but the potential impact of introducing panics through logging should be carefully considered and communicated to developers.

middleware/redirect/redirect_test.go (2)

• 47-52: Adding a new middleware configuration for redirecting /params to /with_params with a status code of MovedPermanently in the test setup is a good addition for testing the redirect functionality, especially in scenarios involving query parameters.
• 113-118: The new test case for redirecting with query parameters is a valuable addition, ensuring that the redirect middleware correctly handles and preserves query parameters during the redirect process. This test enhances the coverage and robustness of the middleware's test suite.

docs/api/middleware/cors.md (4)

• 61-67: The addition of a warning about insecure configurations when AllowOrigins is set to "*" and AllowCredentials is true is a good practice. It helps developers understand potential security risks.
• 75-75: The update to AllowOriginsFunc documentation clarifies the dynamic evaluation of allowed origins and the implications of using wildcard origins with AllowCredentials set to true. This is an important security consideration.
• 79-79: The clarification added to AllowCredentials regarding its use with wildcard origins (*) is crucial for preventing security vulnerabilities. It's good to see this explicitly mentioned in the documentation.
• 76-76: No changes were made to the AllowOrigins documentation itself, but the context around it has been enhanced for better understanding of its interaction with other properties.

middleware/cors/cors.go (2)

• 19-21: The update to the AllowOriginsFunc documentation within the Config struct provides clarity on the dynamic evaluation of allowed origins and the handling of wildcard origins when AllowCredentials is true. This is a valuable clarification for developers.
• 46-47: The clarification added to AllowCredentials in the Config struct regarding its interaction with wildcard origins is important for security. It prevents misconfiguration that could lead to vulnerabilities.

middleware/healthcheck/healthcheck_test.go (4)

• 30-45: The tests for strict routing with the default health check endpoints are well-structured and cover the expected behavior for both available and unavailable endpoints. It's good to see parallel execution and helper functions used for readability.
• 106-118: The default health check test is concise and covers the basic functionality. It's good to see the use of parallel execution and helper functions for asserting the status codes.
• 204-217: The test for the Next function in the health check middleware correctly verifies that the middleware can be skipped based on custom logic. This is an important feature for conditional middleware execution.
• 219-236: The benchmark test for the health check middleware provides valuable insights into its performance characteristics. It's good practice to include such benchmarks for middleware components to understand their impact on application performance.

log/default_test.go (5)

• 31-44: The new test function Test_WithContextCaller correctly tests logging with context and caller information. The use of a custom writer to capture log output and the assertion for expected log format are well-implemented.
• 58-71: The addition of panic handling in the Test_DefaultLogger function is a good practice to ensure that the logger behaves as expected in panic scenarios. The use of a deferred function to catch the panic and assert its occurrence is correctly implemented.
• 92-105: Similar to the previous comment, the addition of panic handling in the Test_DefaultFormatLogger function ensures that formatted logging behaves correctly during panics. The approach to testing and asserting panic behavior is consistent and appropriate.
• 128-141: The panic handling added to the Test_CtxLogger function is important for verifying that context-aware logging handles panics as expected. The methodology for testing and asserting is consistent with other tests and is correctly applied here.
• 28-49: > 📝 NOTE

This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [1-237]

Overall, the modifications and additions to the logger tests improve the coverage and robustness of the logging functionality. It's important to ensure that logging behaves correctly in various scenarios, including panics. The tests are well-structured and provide clear assertions for expected behavior.

docs/api/middleware/logger.md (1)

• 104-104: The addition of ${ip} and ${error} tags to the Format property in the Config struct enhances the logging capabilities by including IP and error information in the logs. This change aligns with the objective of expanding the default logging format for requests. Ensure that the documentation clearly explains how to use these new tags and their expected output in the logs.

middleware/logger/tags.go (1)

• 147-152: The update to the TagError function to conditionally apply colors to the error message based on the enableColors flag enhances the readability of error logs when colors are enabled. This change is a good practice for improving log clarity and debugging experience. However, ensure that the enableColors flag is properly managed and documented, as it directly affects the output of this function.

middleware/cors/utils_test.go (4)

• 8-48: The test cases for normalizeOrigin cover a comprehensive range of scenarios, including handling of ports, paths, queries, fragments, and IPv6 addresses. This thorough testing ensures that the normalizeOrigin function behaves as expected across various valid and invalid origin formats. It's important to maintain this level of coverage as the function evolves.
• 51-76: The test cases for matchScheme effectively assess whether the function correctly handles scheme matching, including cases with scheme mismatches, port differences, and localhost/IP address handling. These tests are crucial for ensuring that the CORS middleware accurately matches schemes as part of its security checks.
• 79-114: The validateOrigin test cases provide a good coverage of domain and pattern matching scenarios, including exact matches, scheme mismatches, port differences, and wildcard subdomain handling. This ensures that the CORS middleware correctly validates origins against specified patterns, which is fundamental for CORS security.
• 117-145: The test cases for normalizeDomain cover various scenarios, including handling of schemes, ports, paths, queries, fragments, and different types of domains (e.g., localhost, IPv4, IPv6). These tests ensure that the domain normalization logic is robust and handles a wide range of inputs correctly.

middleware/adaptor/adaptor_test.go (5)

• 38-39: The introduction of a new type contextKeyType for expectedContextKey is a good practice for type safety and readability when working with context values. This change helps prevent potential type mismatches and makes the code more self-documenting.
• 90-90: Switching from NewCtx to AcquireCtx and ReleaseCtx in Test_HTTPHandler is a significant improvement in terms of resource management. This change ensures that the context is properly acquired and released, which is crucial for avoiding memory leaks and ensuring efficient resource utilization.
• 118-118: Adding const expectedHost = "foobar.com" in Test_HTTPMiddleware and setting req.Host = expectedHost in various test cases is a good practice for consistency and maintainability. It centralizes the host value, making it easier to update if needed and ensuring that all related tests use the same host value.
• 245-246: Asserting both expectedHost and the base URL in testFiberToHandlerFunc is a thorough approach to testing, ensuring that the host is correctly set and that the base URL is constructed as expected. This level of detail in testing is commendable and contributes to the reliability of the code.
• 302-302: Modifying the signature of setFiberContextValueMiddleware to accept key and value as any type is a flexible approach that allows for a wider range of context values to be set. However, it's important to ensure that the type of key used here is compatible with the way context values are retrieved elsewhere in the application to avoid runtime errors.

Verification successful

---

The usage of the Locals method across various files in the application, as shown in the script output, confirms that the application consistently handles the key as any type. This aligns with the modified signature of setFiberContextValueMiddleware and suggests that the application is designed to effectively manage context values with flexible key types. Therefore, the concern raised in the review comment about ensuring the compatibility of the key type used with setFiberContextValueMiddleware across the application is addressed by the consistent handling of key as any type in the usage of Locals.

Scripts Executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

---

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Verify that the key type used with setFiberContextValueMiddleware is consistently handled across the application.
rg --type go 'Locals\('

Length of output: 2817

docs/api/app.md (2)

• 96-96: Changing the function signature in the Static struct from func(c *Ctx) bool to func(c Ctx) bool in the documentation aligns with the Fiber framework's convention of passing context by value rather than by pointer. This change improves consistency and follows Go's best practices for receiver types that are small, immutable, or intended to be copied.
• 208-208: Correcting the indentation in the main function example where api.Get("/bar", handler).Name("bar") was indented properly enhances the readability of the documentation. Consistent indentation is crucial for maintaining the clarity and professionalism of the documentation, making it easier for users to understand and follow the examples.

middleware/session/session_test.go (1)

• 625-625: In the benchmark test, app.AcquireCtx(&fasthttp.RequestCtx{}) is used for context acquisition, and app.ReleaseCtx(c) is correctly used to release the context. This is a good practice and aligns with the recommendations made for other test functions.

The correct use of defer app.ReleaseCtx(c) in this context demonstrates proper resource management.

redirect_test.go (19)

• 24-24: The change from NewCtx to AcquireCtx in Test_Redirect_To is consistent with the PR's objective to update context management strategy. This should ensure more efficient resource handling.
• 44-44: In Test_Redirect_Route_WithParams, the use of AcquireCtx aligns with the updated context acquisition strategy. It's important to ensure that all tests are updated to reflect this change for consistency.
• 63-63: The update to AcquireCtx in Test_Redirect_Route_WithParams_WithQueries is correctly applied. The detailed check on query parameters ordering is a good practice for ensuring test reliability.
• 87-87: Test_Redirect_Route_WithOptionalParams correctly uses AcquireCtx, which is in line with the new context management approach. Consistency across tests is crucial for maintainability.
• 106-106: The application of AcquireCtx in Test_Redirect_Route_WithOptionalParamsWithoutValue demonstrates attention to detail in updating context acquisition methods across all relevant tests.
• 121-121: In Test_Redirect_Route_WithGreedyParameters, the switch to AcquireCtx is correctly implemented. This change is part of the broader update to context handling in the framework.
• 140-140: Test_Redirect_Back's adoption of AcquireCtx is in line with the updated context management strategy. The test's structure and assertions remain clear and understandable.
• 162-162: The use of AcquireCtx in Test_Redirect_Back_WithReferer correctly reflects the new approach to context acquisition. The test's focus on the Referer header is a good detail.
• 181-181: In Test_Redirect_Route_WithFlashMessages, the explicit type assertion to *DefaultCtx after using AcquireCtx is noteworthy. Ensure that this type assertion is safe and necessary for the test's context.
• 204-204: Test_Redirect_Route_WithOldInput also uses the type assertion to *DefaultCtx. It's important to verify that these assertions are consistently applied across tests where needed.
• 232-232: The function Test_Redirect_setFlash correctly uses AcquireCtx and includes a type assertion. This test specifically checks the flash message functionality, which is critical for user feedback mechanisms.
• 339-339: In the benchmark Benchmark_Redirect_Route, the use of AcquireCtx and the type assertion to *DefaultCtx are applied correctly. Benchmarks are essential for assessing performance impacts of changes.
• 366-366: Benchmark_Redirect_Route_WithQueries correctly implements the updated context acquisition method. The detailed analysis of query parameters is a good practice for ensuring accuracy in benchmarks.
• 398-398: The benchmark Benchmark_Redirect_Route_WithFlashMessages uses AcquireCtx appropriately. The test for cookie values is crucial for verifying flash message functionality.
• 427-427: In Benchmark_Redirect_setFlash, the use of AcquireCtx and subsequent operations are correctly implemented. This benchmark is important for evaluating the performance of flash message handling.
• 456-456: Benchmark_Redirect_Messages correctly uses AcquireCtx and tests the retrieval of flash messages. Consistency in using the updated context acquisition method across benchmarks is good practice.
• 481-481: The benchmark Benchmark_Redirect_OldInputs uses AcquireCtx correctly and tests the functionality of retrieving old input values. This is important for user experience in form submissions.
• 506-506: In Benchmark_Redirect_Message, the use of AcquireCtx and the focus on a single flash message retrieval are correctly implemented. This benchmark helps assess the efficiency of message handling.
• 531-531: Benchmark_Redirect_OldInput correctly implements the updated context acquisition strategy and tests the retrieval of a specific old input value. This is crucial for form handling and user feedback.

middleware/cors/cors_test.go (9)

• 37-37: The test Test_CORS_Negative_MaxAge correctly sets the MaxAge to -1 and validates that the Access-Control-Max-Age header is returned as "0". This aligns with the intent to test negative values for MaxAge and ensures compliance with CORS specifications.
• 74-104: The test Test_CORS_Wildcard effectively validates various CORS configurations, including wildcard origins, credentials, and custom headers. It's well-structured and covers important scenarios for CORS handling. However, it's important to ensure that the test environment is isolated to prevent side effects from parallel test execution.
• 71-116: > 📝 NOTE

This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [106-132]

The test Test_CORS_Origin_AllowCredentials is designed to validate the handling of credentials with specific origins. It correctly sets up the CORS configuration and asserts the expected headers. This test is crucial for ensuring that credentials are handled securely in CORS scenarios.

• 146-169: The test Test_CORS_Wildcard_AllowCredentials_Panic checks for a panic when AllowOrigins is set to * and AllowCredentials is true, which is a security risk. This test is important for ensuring the middleware prevents insecure configurations. It's well-implemented and serves as a good safety check.
• 172-193: The test Test_CORS_Invalid_Origin_Panic aims to verify that the middleware panics when an invalid origin (missing scheme) is provided. This test ensures that the middleware enforces correct origin formats, contributing to overall security.
• 285-287: The test case within Test_CORS_AllowOriginScheme that checks for a very long subdomain pattern is an interesting edge case. It's good to see such thorough testing, but ensure that this scenario is realistic and relevant to the application's expected use cases to avoid unnecessary complexity in tests.
• 420-422: In Test_CORS_AllowOriginsFunc, the test validates that the Allow-Origin header is correctly set based on a custom function. This is a key feature for dynamic origin validation. The test is clear and effectively demonstrates the functionality.
• 438-557: The test Test_CORS_AllowOriginsAndAllowOriginsFunc_AllUseCases thoroughly covers various configurations of AllowOrigins and AllowOriginsFunc. It's well-organized and uses table-driven tests, which are excellent for readability and maintainability. This approach is highly recommended for testing multiple scenarios efficiently.
• 559-647: The test Test_CORS_AllowCredentials covers various scenarios related to the AllowCredentials configuration. It's crucial for ensuring the correct behavior of credentials handling in CORS policies. The use of table-driven tests here is again a good practice, enhancing the test suite's clarity and maintainability.

ctx_interface.go (2)

• 443-450: The AcquireCtx method now takes a *fasthttp.RequestCtx parameter, which is a significant change as it directly affects how contexts are acquired and initialized. This change ensures that the context is always initialized with a request context, which is a good practice for consistency and avoiding nil pointer dereferences. However, ensure that all calls to AcquireCtx throughout the codebase have been updated to pass the required *fasthttp.RequestCtx parameter.
• 473-473: The explicit call to setReq within the Reset method of DefaultCtx ensures that the request context is properly set every time a context is reset. This is a good practice for maintaining the integrity of the context state across requests. However, it's important to review the implementation of setReq to ensure it correctly handles all aspects of the request context, including any potential edge cases or error conditions.

router_test.go (2)

• 654-654: The usage of AcquireCtx has been updated to explicitly pass the request parameter. This change aligns with the PR's objective to update context management strategies. However, it's important to ensure that this change does not affect the benchmark's intention or accuracy. The comment //nolint:errcheck, forcetypeassert // not needed indicates that error checking and type assertion are intentionally skipped, which is common in benchmarks for performance reasons. However, in a production environment, it's crucial to handle potential errors from AcquireCtx to prevent runtime panics.
• 835-835: Similar to the previous comment, the update to AcquireCtx here is part of the PR's broader effort to refine context management. The explicit passing of the c context parameter is a good practice, ensuring clarity and consistency in how contexts are acquired in benchmark tests. The same considerations regarding error handling and type assertion apply here as well. It's also worth noting the loop structure used for benchmarking, which is standard practice for Go benchmarks. The use of app.ReleaseCtx(ctx) at the end of each iteration is crucial for releasing resources and preventing memory leaks during the benchmark.

middleware/csrf/csrf_test.go (6)

• 82-82: The use of defer app.ReleaseCtx(app.AcquireCtx(ctx)) immediately after acquiring a context is a good practice for ensuring that resources are properly released. However, it's important to ensure that the context is not used after it has been released, as this could lead to undefined behavior.
• 85-85: Acquiring a new context for the session store with store.Get(app.AcquireCtx(ctx)) is correct. This ensures that each test case operates with a fresh context, aligning with best practices for test isolation and resource management.
• 91-91: Setting a cookie on the acquired context with app.AcquireCtx(ctx).Request().Header.SetCookie("_session", newSessionIDString) is appropriate. This simulates a real-world scenario where a session cookie would be present in the request. It's crucial for the test to mimic actual usage patterns accurately.
• 215-215: Similar to the previous comment, using defer app.ReleaseCtx(app.AcquireCtx(ctx)) ensures that the context is released after the test execution. This is crucial for avoiding memory leaks and ensuring that resources are managed efficiently.
• 717-719: The pattern of acquiring a context, performing an operation, and then handling errors within the same block is correctly implemented here. However, it's essential to ensure that HandlerFromContext and DeleteToken functions are designed to handle the context correctly, especially since the context is acquired specifically for these operations.
• 784-786: This segment follows the same pattern as the previous comment, with the context being acquired for the purpose of deleting a CSRF token. It's important to ensure that the DeleteToken function is idempotent and handles the context correctly, as misuse could lead to unexpected behavior or resource leaks.

app.go (2)

• 499-499: The change from app.NewCtx(&fasthttp.RequestCtx{}) to app.newCtx() in the New function simplifies context creation by directly utilizing the pool mechanism without the need for an explicit fasthttp.RequestCtx parameter. This adjustment is positive as it streamlines the context acquisition process and potentially reduces the chance for errors or misuse of the context creation function. However, ensure that the newCtx function is properly implemented to handle context creation with all necessary initializations as before.
• 1074-1074: The modification in the serverErrorHandler function to use app.AcquireCtx(fctx) for acquiring Ctx directly from the pool is a significant improvement. This change ensures that the context is efficiently reused and managed, which can lead to better performance and resource utilization. It's crucial to verify that the AcquireCtx and ReleaseCtx methods are correctly managing the lifecycle of the context objects to prevent any memory leaks or incorrect context data due to improper reuse.

bind_test.go (6)

• 26-26: The change from NewCtx to AcquireCtx is consistent with the PR's objective to update context acquisition methods. This is a positive change for resource management.
• 292-292: The use of AcquireCtx in Test_Bind_Header follows the systematic update in context acquisition methods. This ensures consistency across the test suite.
• 1512-1512: Registering a custom binder using app.RegisterCustomBinder(customBinder) demonstrates flexibility in handling different content types. This is a good practice for extending the framework's capabilities.
• 1536-1536: Using Must() in Test_Bind_Must for enforcing required fields is a good practice for input validation. It simplifies error handling by directly setting the response status code and message.
• 1576-1576: The integration of a custom struct validator in Test_Bind_StructValidator showcases the framework's support for custom validation logic. This is beneficial for implementing domain-specific validation rules.
• 1591-1591: Reusing the same struct Request for parsing query parameters, headers, and body content in Test_Bind_RepeatParserWithSameStruct demonstrates the binder's versatility. This approach reduces the need for multiple structs when handling different parts of a request.

app_test.go (3)

• 317-317: The change from NewCtx to AcquireCtx is noted. This aligns with the PR's objective to update context management strategies. Ensure that all instances where a context is acquired or released are updated accordingly to maintain consistency across the codebase.
• 327-327: Similar to the previous comment, the use of AcquireCtx here is consistent with the updated context management strategy. It's important to verify that the context is properly released after its use to avoid memory leaks.
• 1403-1403: The addition of an argument in the Reset method call within the Benchmark_AcquireCtx function is not visible in the provided code. However, it's crucial to ensure that the Reset method's signature across the codebase is updated to match this change. This might involve updating the method definition and all its calls to include the new argument.

docs/api/ctx.md (2)

• 1438-1443: The documentation for ParamsParser method has been updated to include examples of handling query parameters with and without enabling splitting on parsers. This is a valuable addition for developers to understand how to use the ParamsParser method effectively. However, it's important to ensure that the examples provided are clear and accurately reflect the behavior of the method under different configurations.
• 1453-1456: The note about parser settings in the fiber.Config is a helpful addition, guiding developers to further configuration options. It's crucial that this link is correct and leads to the relevant section of the documentation. Ensuring that developers have easy access to related configuration options enhances the usability of the documentation.

ctx_test.go (4)

• 4968-4974: > 📝 NOTE

This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [4971-4978]

The test Test_Ctx_GetRespHeaders correctly asserts the functionality of GetRespHeaders method. It verifies that all response headers, including those set via Set method and directly on the Response().Header, are correctly retrieved as a map. The use of emojis in header values is a good test for ensuring character encoding is handled properly.

• 4986-4992: > 📝 NOTE

This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [4989-5007]

The benchmark Benchmark_Ctx_GetRespHeaders is well-structured and tests the performance of the GetRespHeaders method under repeated calls. It properly resets the timer after setup to ensure only the execution time of the method is measured. The use of b.ReportAllocs() is good practice for memory allocation tracking.

• 5011-5017: > 📝 NOTE

This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [5014-5024]

The test Test_Ctx_GetReqHeaders effectively validates the GetReqHeaders method, ensuring it accurately retrieves all request headers as a map. This includes headers set directly on the Request().Header. The test also checks for the correct handling of multiple values for the same header name, which is crucial for headers like Accept-Encoding.

• 5029-5035: > 📝 NOTE

This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [5032-5050]

The benchmark Benchmark_Ctx_GetReqHeaders is correctly implemented to measure the performance of the GetReqHeaders method. It ensures the setup phase is not included in the time measurement by resetting the timer. Including memory allocation tracking with b.ReportAllocs() is a good practice for performance testing.

[coderabbitai]

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 0

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 639f552 and 4c9e76d.

Files selected for processing (4)

• middleware/cors/cors.go (5 hunks)
• middleware/healthcheck/healthcheck_test.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/session/session_test.go (16 hunks)
• router.go (1 hunks)

Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)

• middleware/cors/cors.go
• middleware/healthcheck/healthcheck_test.go
• middleware/session/session_test.go
• router.go

[renanbastos93]

Awesome

[coderabbitai]

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 0

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4c9e76d and e392d04.

Files selected for processing (1)

• middleware/proxy/proxy_test.go (1 hunks)

Additional comments: 3

middleware/proxy/proxy_test.go (3)

• 302-302: The sleep duration in the Test_Proxy_Timeout_Slow_Server function has been reduced to 300 milliseconds. This change seems to be in line with the objective to adjust timeout values for the test. However, ensure that this reduced sleep time still effectively tests the timeout behavior as intended.
• 309-309: The timeout for the proxy in the Test_Proxy_Timeout_Slow_Server function has been adjusted to 600 milliseconds. This change is appropriate for testing the proxy's timeout handling capabilities. It's important to verify that this timeout setting aligns with the expected behavior and that the test accurately reflects scenarios that users might encounter.
• 312-312: The test request timeout has been modified to 2000 milliseconds. This adjustment seems reasonable and should provide ample time for the request to complete, considering the proxy's configured timeout. It's crucial to ensure that this test timeout does not inadvertently mask issues with the proxy's timeout handling.

[coderabbitai]

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 1

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between e392d04 and 4a1891b.

Files selected for processing (33)

• .golangci.yml (1 hunks)
• app_test.go (59 hunks)
• bind_test.go (41 hunks)
• ctx_test.go (218 hunks)
• middleware/adaptor/adaptor_test.go (9 hunks)
• middleware/basicauth/basicauth_test.go (3 hunks)
• middleware/cache/cache_test.go (32 hunks)
• middleware/compress/compress_test.go (8 hunks)
• middleware/cors/cors_test.go (9 hunks)
• middleware/csrf/csrf_test.go (10 hunks)
• middleware/earlydata/earlydata_test.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/encryptcookie/encryptcookie_test.go (2 hunks)
• middleware/envvar/envvar_test.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/etag/etag_test.go (9 hunks)
• middleware/expvar/expvar_test.go (6 hunks)
• middleware/favicon/favicon_test.go (8 hunks)
• middleware/filesystem/filesystem_test.go (7 hunks)
• middleware/healthcheck/healthcheck_test.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/helmet/helmet_test.go (8 hunks)
• middleware/idempotency/idempotency_test.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/keyauth/keyauth_test.go (9 hunks)
• middleware/limiter/limiter_test.go (19 hunks)
• middleware/logger/logger_test.go (21 hunks)
• middleware/pprof/pprof_test.go (11 hunks)
• middleware/proxy/proxy_test.go (23 hunks)
• middleware/recover/recover_test.go (4 hunks)
• middleware/redirect/redirect_test.go (3 hunks)
• middleware/requestid/requestid_test.go (4 hunks)
• middleware/rewrite/rewrite_test.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/skip/skip_test.go (4 hunks)
• middleware/timeout/timeout_test.go (5 hunks)
• mount_test.go (2 hunks)
• router_test.go (24 hunks)

Files not summarized due to errors (1)

• ctx_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit

Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (4)

• middleware/earlydata/earlydata_test.go
• middleware/envvar/envvar_test.go
• middleware/idempotency/idempotency_test.go
• middleware/rewrite/rewrite_test.go

Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (10)

• app_test.go
• bind_test.go
• middleware/adaptor/adaptor_test.go
• middleware/cors/cors_test.go
• middleware/csrf/csrf_test.go
• middleware/healthcheck/healthcheck_test.go
• middleware/proxy/proxy_test.go
• middleware/redirect/redirect_test.go
• middleware/timeout/timeout_test.go
• router_test.go

Additional comments: 116

middleware/skip/skip_test.go (2)

• 4-4: The addition of the net/http import is necessary for the subsequent use of http.NoBody in test requests. This is a good practice for clarity and safety in HTTP request handling.
• 21-21: Replacing nil with http.NoBody in httptest.NewRequest calls across the test functions (Test_Skip, Test_SkipFalse, Test_SkipNilFunc) improves the explicitness of the request's intention not to send a body. This is a positive change for code readability and safety.

Also applies to: 34-34, 47-47

middleware/recover/recover_test.go (2)

• 4-4: Importing net/http for the use of http.NoBody is a good practice, enhancing the clarity of HTTP request creation in tests.
• 28-28: The replacement of nil with http.NoBody in httptest.NewRequest calls within the test functions (Test_Recover, Test_Recover_Next, Test_Recover_EnableStackTrace) is a commendable change, making the test requests' intentions clearer and safer.

Also applies to: 43-43, 59-59

middleware/requestid/requestid_test.go (2)

• 4-4: The addition of the net/http import for using http.NoBody in test requests is consistent with best practices, enhancing test code clarity and safety.
• 23-23: Replacing nil with http.NoBody in httptest.NewRequest calls within the test functions improves the clarity and intention of the test requests, aligning with best practices for HTTP request handling.

Also applies to: 30-30, 49-49, 74-74

middleware/expvar/expvar_test.go (2)

• 6-6: Importing net/http to use http.NoBody in test requests is a positive change, enhancing the clarity and safety of HTTP request handling in tests.
• 24-24: The replacement of nil with http.NoBody in httptest.NewRequest calls across various test functions related to expvar functionality is a commendable improvement, making the test requests' intentions clearer and safer.

Also applies to: 43-43, 64-64, 85-85, 101-101

.golangci.yml (1)

• 165-170: The addition of an exclusion for the bodyclose linter for test files (_test\.go) is a thoughtful change. It acknowledges the different contexts in which HTTP bodies are handled in tests versus production code. Just ensure that in test scenarios where it's important, explicit checks for body closure are still performed to avoid resource leaks.

middleware/favicon/favicon_test.go (1)

• 27-39: Replacing nil with http.NoBody in test requests is a good practice, as it explicitly indicates the absence of a request body. This change enhances clarity and ensures correct handling of the Content-Length header. Good job on making these test cases more precise and understandable.

Also applies to: 72-72, 92-92, 114-114, 131-131, 148-148, 184-184

middleware/filesystem/filesystem_test.go (1)

• 125-125: The update to use http.NoBody in place of nil for the request body in test cases is consistently applied and improves the clarity of these tests. This practice ensures that the intent of having no request body is explicitly communicated, which is beneficial for readability and correctness.

Also applies to: 148-148, 161-161, 177-177, 205-205, 248-248

middleware/etag/etag_test.go (1)

• 25-25: The consistent replacement of nil with http.NoBody across various test cases in this file is commendable. It clearly communicates the intention of having no request body and aligns with best practices for writing clear and correct test cases. This consistency across the project's test files is a positive step towards maintaining high code quality.

Also applies to: 41-41, 57-57, 73-73, 106-106, 160-160, 218-218, 259-259

middleware/helmet/helmet_test.go (8)

• 21-21: Replacing nil with http.NoBody in the app.Test call is a good practice for explicitly indicating that no request body is intended. This change improves code readability and aligns with the HTTP package's recommendations.
• 65-65: The use of http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in test cases is consistent and appropriate. It clarifies the intent of the test and ensures that the request body is explicitly defined as empty.
• 110-110: Applying http.NoBody for the request body in this test case is correct and enhances the clarity of the test's intention. This change is consistent with best practices for handling HTTP requests in tests.
• 145-145: The replacement of nil with http.NoBody in the test request is a minor but meaningful improvement. It explicitly specifies that the request does not contain a body, which is a good practice for test clarity.
• 149-149: Using http.NoBody for the request body in tests is a good practice. It makes the test cases more explicit and understandable, indicating that no request body is being sent.
• 165-165: The change to use http.NoBody in the test request is appropriate and aligns with best practices for writing clear and explicit test cases. This ensures that the request body is intentionally empty.
• 182-182: Replacing nil with http.NoBody for the request body in this test case is a good practice. It explicitly indicates the absence of a request body and improves the readability and intention of the test.
• 199-199: The consistent use of http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body across all test cases, including this one, is a good practice. It clarifies the test's intention and aligns with best practices for handling HTTP requests in tests.

middleware/keyauth/keyauth_test.go (8)

• 288-288: The replacement of nil with http.NoBody for the request body in this test case is a good practice. It explicitly indicates that the request does not contain a body, improving the clarity and intention of the test.
• 300-300: Using http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test case is appropriate and aligns with best practices for writing clear and explicit test cases. This ensures that the request body is intentionally empty.
• 337-337: The change to use http.NoBody in the test request is appropriate and enhances the clarity of the test's intention. This is consistent with best practices for handling HTTP requests in tests.
• 350-350: Replacing nil with http.NoBody for the request body in this test case is a minor but meaningful improvement. It explicitly specifies that the request does not contain a body, which is a good practice for test clarity.
• 363-363: The consistent use of http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body across all test cases, including this one, is a good practice. It clarifies the test's intention and aligns with best practices for handling HTTP requests in tests.
• 397-397: Using http.NoBody for the request body in tests is a good practice. It makes the test cases more explicit and understandable, indicating that no request body is being sent.
• 433-433: The replacement of nil with http.NoBody in the test request is appropriate and aligns with best practices for writing clear and explicit test cases. This ensures that the request body is intentionally empty.
• 445-445: The change to use http.NoBody in the test request is a good practice for explicitly indicating that no request body is intended. This change improves code readability and aligns with the HTTP package's recommendations.

middleware/logger/logger_test.go (17)

• 41-41: Using http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body is a good practice as it explicitly indicates that the request does not have a body. This change improves the clarity and correctness of the test cases.
• 74-74: The updates to use http.NoBody in these test cases are consistent and improve the readability and intention of the tests. It's a good practice to explicitly specify when a request does not include a body.

Also applies to: 81-81, 88-88

• 104-104: Replacing nil with http.NoBody for the request body in this test case is appropriate and aligns with best practices for HTTP request testing.
• 125-125: The use of http.NoBody here is consistent with the improvements made across other test cases, ensuring clarity in the test's intention.
• 140-140: The change to use http.NoBody is correctly applied here, enhancing the test case's explicitness regarding the absence of a request body.
• 162-162: In both of these test cases, the switch to http.NoBody is a positive change, making the tests more explicit and readable.

Also applies to: 177-177

• 198-198: The application of http.NoBody in this test case is consistent with the overall improvements in test clarity and correctness seen throughout the file.
• 261-261: Using http.NoBody in these latency-related tests is a good practice, ensuring that the tests are focused on measuring latency without the ambiguity of request body handling.

Also applies to: 303-303

• 331-331: The use of http.NoBody for the request body in this test case is appropriate and aligns with the improvements made in other test cases for clarity and correctness.
• 359-359: In these response body tests, the use of http.NoBody is correctly applied, ensuring that the tests are clear in their intention and focus on the response body content.

Also applies to: 367-367

• 391-391: The change to use http.NoBody in this test case is consistent with the overall improvements in test case clarity and correctness throughout the file.
• 421-424: The use of http.NoBody in this data race test case is appropriate and aligns with the improvements made in other test cases for clarity and correctness. Additionally, the parallel execution of requests in this test case is a good practice for identifying potential data races.
• 512-512: The application of http.NoBody in this test case is consistent with the overall improvements in test clarity and correctness seen throughout the file.
• 533-533: In both of these test cases, the switch to http.NoBody is a positive change, making the tests more explicit and readable. It's good to see consistent improvements across the test cases.

Also applies to: 556-556

• 586-586: The use of http.NoBody for the request body in this custom tag test case is appropriate and aligns with the improvements made in other test cases for clarity and correctness.
• 629-629: The change to use http.NoBody in this streaming bytes sent test case is consistent with the overall improvements in test case clarity and correctness throughout the file.
• 651-651: The application of http.NoBody in this test case is consistent with the overall improvements in test clarity and correctness seen throughout the file.

mount_test.go (2)

• 460-460: The change from nil to http.NoBody in the httptest.NewRequest call for a MethodGet request is a good practice. It explicitly indicates that no request body is expected, which can help avoid nil pointer dereferences in some HTTP handling scenarios.
• 467-467: Similarly, using http.NoBody instead of nil for the MethodPost request in httptest.NewRequest is a positive change. It ensures consistency across test cases and clarifies the intent that no body is being sent with the request.

middleware/limiter/limiter_test.go (10)

• 37-37: The replacement of nil with http.NoBody for the request body in app.Test calls is a good practice. It explicitly indicates that the request does not have a body, improving code readability and potentially avoiding nil pointer dereferences within the app.Test function.
• 53-53: Using http.NoBody in app.Test calls is consistent with best practices for HTTP requests without a body. This change ensures that the tests are more representative of real-world scenarios where an empty body is explicitly indicated.
• 59-59: The consistent use of http.NoBody across tests, as seen here, helps maintain code quality and readability. It's a minor but meaningful improvement to the test codebase.
• 83-83: Replacing nil with http.NoBody in this context is appropriate and aligns with the changes made throughout the file. It ensures clarity in the request's intention of having no body.
• 99-99: The application of http.NoBody for empty request bodies is consistent and beneficial for code clarity and potentially avoiding issues related to handling nil bodies.
• 105-105: Continuing the pattern of using http.NoBody for requests without a body across different test scenarios is a good practice, enhancing the maintainability and readability of the test suite.
• 130-130: The use of http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in tests is a positive change, ensuring that the tests accurately represent requests intended to have no body.
• 134-134: Adopting http.NoBody for indicating an empty request body across various test cases, as seen here, is a good practice that improves code readability and clarity.
• 138-138: The consistent use of http.NoBody in test requests without a body is a minor but impactful improvement to the test code, enhancing its clarity and maintainability.
• 144-144: Using http.NoBody for empty request bodies across all tests, including this one, is a good practice that aligns with modern HTTP request handling standards.

middleware/cache/cache_test.go (52)

• 39-39: Replacing nil with http.NoBody for the request body in httptest.NewRequest calls is a good practice. It explicitly indicates that the request does not intend to send any body, improving code readability and avoiding potential nil pointer dereferences.
• 57-57: The use of http.NoBody in place of nil for the request body is consistent with best practices and enhances the clarity of the test's intent.
• 65-65: Consistent application of http.NoBody instead of nil for request bodies across tests is noted and appreciated for its clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 75-75: The replacement of nil with http.NoBody in the request body is correctly applied, ensuring consistency and clarity in the test code.
• 96-96: Using http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is a good practice, enhancing code readability and safety.
• 100-100: The consistent use of http.NoBody for indicating an empty request body across tests is noted and aligns well with best practices.
• 124-124: Replacing nil with http.NoBody for the request body in httptest.NewRequest calls is correctly applied here, enhancing the clarity and safety of the test code.
• 134-134: The use of http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is consistent with the improvements across the file, ensuring clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 144-144: Consistent application of http.NoBody instead of nil for request bodies across tests is appreciated for its clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 156-156: The replacement of nil with http.NoBody in the request body is correctly applied, ensuring consistency and clarity in the test code.
• 167-167: Using http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is a good practice, enhancing code readability and safety.
• 192-192: The consistent use of http.NoBody for indicating an empty request body across tests is noted and aligns well with best practices.
• 203-203: Replacing nil with http.NoBody for the request body in httptest.NewRequest calls is correctly applied here, enhancing the clarity and safety of the test code.
• 212-212: The use of http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is consistent with the improvements across the file, ensuring clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 225-225: Consistent application of http.NoBody instead of nil for request bodies across tests is appreciated for its clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 235-235: The replacement of nil with http.NoBody in the request body is correctly applied, ensuring consistency and clarity in the test code.
• 255-255: Using http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is a good practice, enhancing code readability and safety.
• 282-282: The consistent use of http.NoBody for indicating an empty request body across tests is noted and aligns well with best practices.
• 315-315: Replacing nil with http.NoBody for the request body in httptest.NewRequest calls is correctly applied here, enhancing the clarity and safety of the test code.
• 319-319: The use of http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is consistent with the improvements across the file, ensuring clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 346-346: Consistent application of http.NoBody instead of nil for request bodies across tests is appreciated for its clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 352-352: The replacement of nil with http.NoBody in the request body is correctly applied, ensuring consistency and clarity in the test code.
• 358-358: Using http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is a good practice, enhancing code readability and safety.
• 364-364: The consistent use of http.NoBody for indicating an empty request body across tests is noted and aligns well with best practices.
• 388-388: Replacing nil with http.NoBody for the request body in httptest.NewRequest calls is correctly applied here, enhancing the clarity and safety of the test code.
• 394-394: The use of http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is consistent with the improvements across the file, ensuring clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 400-400: Consistent application of http.NoBody instead of nil for request bodies across tests is appreciated for its clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 406-406: The replacement of nil with http.NoBody in the request body is correctly applied, ensuring consistency and clarity in the test code.
• 424-424: Using http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is a good practice, enhancing code readability and safety.
• 461-461: The consistent use of http.NoBody for indicating an empty request body across tests is noted and aligns well with best practices.
• 466-466: Replacing nil with http.NoBody for the request body in httptest.NewRequest calls is correctly applied here, enhancing the clarity and safety of the test code.
• 473-473: The use of http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is consistent with the improvements across the file, ensuring clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 476-476: Consistent application of http.NoBody instead of nil for request bodies across tests is appreciated for its clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 495-495: The replacement of nil with http.NoBody in the request body is correctly applied, ensuring consistency and clarity in the test code.
• 520-520: Using http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is a good practice, enhancing code readability and safety.
• 528-528: The consistent use of http.NoBody for indicating an empty request body across tests is noted and aligns well with best practices.
• 541-541: Replacing nil with http.NoBody for the request body in httptest.NewRequest calls is correctly applied here, enhancing the clarity and safety of the test code.
• 564-564: The use of http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is consistent with the improvements across the file, ensuring clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 569-569: Consistent application of http.NoBody instead of nil for request bodies across tests is appreciated for its clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 599-599: The replacement of nil with http.NoBody in the request body is correctly applied, ensuring consistency and clarity in the test code.
• 603-603: Using http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is a good practice, enhancing code readability and safety.
• 607-607: The consistent use of http.NoBody for indicating an empty request body across tests is noted and aligns well with best practices.
• 611-611: Replacing nil with http.NoBody for the request body in httptest.NewRequest calls is correctly applied here, enhancing the clarity and safety of the test code.
• 628-628: The use of http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is consistent with the improvements across the file, ensuring clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 633-633: Consistent application of http.NoBody instead of nil for request bodies across tests is appreciated for its clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 657-657: The replacement of nil with http.NoBody in the request body is correctly applied, ensuring consistency and clarity in the test code.
• 664-664: Using http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is a good practice, enhancing code readability and safety.
• 671-671: The consistent use of http.NoBody for indicating an empty request body across tests is noted and aligns well with best practices.
• 678-678: Replacing nil with http.NoBody for the request body in httptest.NewRequest calls is correctly applied here, enhancing the clarity and safety of the test code.
• 699-699: The use of http.NoBody instead of nil for the request body in this test function is consistent with the improvements across the file, ensuring clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 746-746: Consistent application of http.NoBody instead of nil for request bodies across tests is appreciated for its clarity and adherence to best practices.
• 781-781: The replacement of nil with http.NoBody in the request body is correctly applied, ensuring consistency and clarity in the test code.

ctx_test.go (7)

• 4835-4835: The test for ParamsInt with a non-integer parameter correctly checks for an error condition. This is a good practice to ensure robust error handling in the application.
• 4851-4851: The test for ParamsInt ignoring the default value when an integer parameter is provided is well-implemented. It ensures that the function prioritizes actual parameter values over defaults.
• 4867-4867: The test for ParamsInt using the default value when a non-integer parameter is provided correctly checks that the default value is used in absence of a valid integer. This ensures the function's flexibility in handling different input scenarios.
• 4949-4949: The test for extractIPsFromHeader correctly identifies the last valid IP address from a list of values in the X-Forwarded-For header. This is crucial for accurately determining the client's IP address in applications behind proxies.
• 4960-4960: The test for extractIPsFromHeader with EnableIPValidation enabled ensures that only valid IP addresses are considered from the X-Forwarded-For header. This adds an extra layer of security by filtering out potentially malicious values.
• 4971-4971: The test for GetRespHeaders correctly retrieves all response headers set in the context. This is important for ensuring that headers are correctly managed and can be inspected or modified as needed.
• 5014-5014: The test for GetReqHeaders correctly retrieves all request headers. This functionality is essential for applications that need to inspect headers for routing, authentication, or other purposes.

[coderabbitai]

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 1

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4a1891b and 7661fbb.

Files selected for processing (17)

• app_test.go (7 hunks)
• bind_test.go (38 hunks)
• ctx_test.go (198 hunks)
• middleware/adaptor/adaptor_test.go (12 hunks)
• middleware/cors/cors_test.go (7 hunks)
• middleware/csrf/csrf_test.go (6 hunks)
• middleware/earlydata/earlydata_test.go (5 hunks)
• middleware/favicon/favicon_test.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/filesystem/filesystem_test.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/healthcheck/healthcheck_test.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/idempotency/idempotency_test.go (2 hunks)
• middleware/keyauth/keyauth_test.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/logger/logger_test.go (1 hunks)
• middleware/proxy/proxy_test.go (3 hunks)
• middleware/timeout/timeout_test.go (2 hunks)
• mount_test.go (16 hunks)
• router_test.go (3 hunks)

Files not summarized due to errors (1)

• ctx_test.go: Error: Message exceeds token limit

Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (16)

• app_test.go
• bind_test.go
• middleware/adaptor/adaptor_test.go
• middleware/cors/cors_test.go
• middleware/csrf/csrf_test.go
• middleware/earlydata/earlydata_test.go
• middleware/favicon/favicon_test.go
• middleware/filesystem/filesystem_test.go
• middleware/healthcheck/healthcheck_test.go
• middleware/idempotency/idempotency_test.go
• middleware/keyauth/keyauth_test.go
• middleware/logger/logger_test.go
• middleware/proxy/proxy_test.go
• middleware/timeout/timeout_test.go
• mount_test.go
• router_test.go

Additional comments: 2

ctx_test.go (2)

• 4967-4973: > 📝 NOTE

This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [4970-4988]

The test Test_Ctx_GetRespHeaders correctly verifies the functionality of retrieving response headers as a map. It's well-structured and covers multiple scenarios including setting single and multiple values for headers. This test is approved as it follows best practices for testing, ensuring that the function behaves as expected across different use cases.

• 5010-5016: > 📝 NOTE

This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [5013-5031]

The test Test_Ctx_GetReqHeaders is designed to verify the functionality of retrieving request headers as a map. This test is correctly implemented, covering the retrieval of single and multiple header values, including checking for case sensitivity and the presence of multiple values for the same header. The test is clear and concise, effectively validating the expected behavior.

[coderabbitai]

Review Status

Actionable comments generated: 0

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7661fbb and ab2b0fc.

Files selected for processing (1)

• ctx_interface.go (4 hunks)

Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• ctx_interface.go

[gaby]

Lgtm