added structs comparison support #11
Conversation
WalkthroughA new Go package named Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant CompareStructs
participant Result
User->>CompareStructs: Call CompareStructs(old, new)
CompareStructs->>CompareStructs: Check if types match
CompareStructs->>CompareStructs: Iterate over fields
CompareStructs->>CompareStructs: Check for 'updateable' tag
CompareStructs->>Result: Create Result if values differ
CompareStructs-->>User: Return results slice and nil error
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
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: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
structs/structs_test.go (2)
9-19: LGTM! Consider adding comments for better documentation.The struct definitions for
TestandComplexTestare well-structured and appropriate for testing purposes. The use ofupdateabletags is a good practice for specifying which fields should be compared.Consider adding comments to describe the purpose of each struct and field, especially for the
updateabletags. This would improve code documentation and make it easier for other developers to understand the test setup.
21-88: LGTM! Consider adding more edge cases.The
TestCompareStructsfunction is well-structured using table-driven tests, which is a good practice in Go. The test cases cover both simple and complex struct comparisons, providing good coverage of theCompareStructsfunction's functionality.Consider adding more test cases to cover edge cases and improve test coverage:
- Compare structs with unexported fields to ensure they're handled correctly.
- Test with empty structs or structs where no fields have changed.
- Test with structs containing pointer fields or interface fields.
- Add a negative test case where the input structs are of different types to ensure proper error handling.
Example of an additional test case:
{ name: "compare structs with no changes", old: Test{Name: "example", Age: 10, IsAdult: false}, new: Test{Name: "example", Age: 10, IsAdult: false}, want: []Result{}, wantErr: false, },structs/structs.go (3)
15-18: Follow Go documentation conventions forCompareStructsfunctionComments for exported functions should begin with the function name and be in the form of a single-line comment. This enhances readability and adheres to Go's documentation standards.
Apply this diff to adjust the comment:
-/* -CompareStructs compares two struct instances of the same type -and returns a list of results with the old and new values of each field tagged with `updateable`. -*/ +// CompareStructs compares two struct instances of the same type +// and returns a list of results with the old and new values of each field tagged with `updateable`.
27-27: Optimize slice allocation forcomparedResultsPre-allocating the slice with an estimated capacity can improve performance by reducing memory allocations during appends.
Consider initializing the slice with the number of fields:
-var comparedResults = make([]Result, 0) +var comparedResults = make([]Result, 0, oldValue.NumField())
40-44: Standardize struct tag naming toupdatableThe tag
updateableis less commonly used compared toupdatable. Standardizing the tag name improves readability and aligns with conventional spelling.Apply this diff to update the tag name throughout the code:
-// Check if the field has the `updateable` tag -if tag, ok := field.Tag.Lookup("updateable"); ok && tag != "" { +// Check if the field has the `updatable` tag +if tag, ok := field.Tag.Lookup("updatable"); ok && tag != "" {Ensure that the struct definitions using this tag are also updated accordingly.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- structs/structs.go (1 hunks)
- structs/structs_test.go (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (3)
structs/structs_test.go (1)
1-88: Overall, good test structure with room for enhancement.The
structs_test.gofile provides a solid foundation for testing theCompareStructsfunction. The use of table-driven tests and the coverage of both simple and complex struct comparisons are commendable. To further improve the quality and robustness of the tests, consider implementing the suggested additional test cases and adding more comprehensive documentation.These enhancements will ensure that the
CompareStructsfunction is thoroughly tested across a wide range of scenarios, increasing confidence in its reliability and correctness.structs/structs.go (2)
20-22:⚠️ Potential issueAdd type checks to prevent potential panics
The function assumes that
oldandneware structs. If non-struct types are passed, methods likeNumField()will cause a panic. It's important to verify that the inputs are of kindreflect.Struct.Apply this diff to add the necessary checks:
if reflect.TypeOf(old) != reflect.TypeOf(new) { return nil, fmt.Errorf("both structs must be of the same type") } +if reflect.ValueOf(old).Kind() != reflect.Struct || reflect.ValueOf(new).Kind() != reflect.Struct { + return nil, fmt.Errorf("both inputs must be structs") +}
29-55:⚠️ Potential issueHandle nested structs and pointer fields
The current implementation does not account for nested structs or pointer fields within the structs being compared. This could lead to incomplete comparisons or runtime panics.
Consider enhancing the function to handle these cases, possibly by adding recursive comparison for nested structs and checking for pointer types. Here’s a conceptual example:
func compareValues(oldValue, newValue reflect.Value, fieldName string) Result { // Recursive comparison logic goes here }Would you like assistance in implementing recursive comparison?
|
Please rebase with main so it run all the checks |
kashifkhan0771
force-pushed
the
feat/compare-structs
branch
from
ae7c9f3 to
3894e95
Compare
structs/structs.go
Outdated
| oldValue := reflect.ValueOf(old) | ||
| newValue := reflect.ValueOf(new) | ||
|
|
||
| var comparedResults = make([]Result, 0) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should initialize the slice with a capacity, possibly using make([]Result, 0, oldValue.NumField()). This avoids unnecessary memory allocations when appending items later, which improves performance.
|
Please rebase the branch as well as this branch is out-of-date with the base branch |
kashifkhan0771
force-pushed
the
feat/compare-structs
branch
from
3894e95 to
667dbf1
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
structs/structs_test.go (1)
9-19: Add documentation for struct types.Consider adding documentation comments for both
TestandComplexTesttypes to explain their purpose and usage.Example:
+// Test represents a basic structure with personal information used for testing struct comparison. type Test struct { Name string `updateable:"name"` Age int `updateable:"age"` IsAdult bool `updateable:"is_adult"` } +// ComplexTest represents a structure containing nested Test data along with temporal and historical information. type ComplexTest struct { Data Test `updateable:"data"` UpdatedOn time.Time `updateable:"updated_on"` History []string `updateable:"history"` }
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
- structs/structs.go (1 hunks)
- structs/structs_test.go (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- structs/structs.go
🔇 Additional comments (2)
structs/structs_test.go (2)
1-7: LGTM!Package name and imports are appropriate for the test file.
83-94: LGTM!The test execution logic is well-structured and handles errors appropriately.
kashifkhan0771
force-pushed
the
feat/compare-structs
branch
from
667dbf1 to
c14c889
Compare
kashifkhan0771
force-pushed
the
feat/compare-structs
branch
from
c14c889 to
34a656b
Compare
Added the support to compare two objects of same struct and return the results with old and new value
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Resultstructure to detail differences in field values.Tests