feat(binding): add BindPlain

[guonaihong]

#2037

package main

import (
	"github.com/gin-gonic/gin"
)

func main() {
	router := gin.Default()
	router.POST("/", func(c *gin.Context) {
		var s string
		c.BindPlain(&s)
		c.String(200, s)
	})

	router.Run()
}

// client
// curl -d "test string" 127.0.0.1:8080
// output
// test string

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 90.32258% with 3 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 99.12%. Comparing base (3dc1cd6) to head (5ede0c1).
Report is 53 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
binding/plain.go	91.66%	2 Missing ⚠️
context.go	85.71%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3904      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.21%   99.12%   -0.10%     
==========================================
  Files          42       44       +2     
  Lines        3182     2739     -443     
==========================================
- Hits         3157     2715     -442     
+ Misses         17       14       -3     
- Partials        8       10       +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
	?
-race	∅ <ø> (?)
-tags "sonic avx"	99.11% <90.32%> (?)
-tags go_json	99.11% <90.32%> (?)
-tags nomsgpack	99.10% <90.32%> (?)
go-1.18	99.05% <90.32%> (-0.07%)	⬇️
go-1.19	99.12% <90.32%> (-0.10%)	⬇️
go-1.20	99.12% <90.32%> (-0.10%)	⬇️
go-1.21	99.12% <90.32%> (-0.10%)	⬇️
go-1.22	99.12% <90.32%> (?)
macos-latest	99.12% <90.32%> (-0.10%)	⬇️
ubuntu-latest	99.12% <90.32%> (-0.10%)	⬇️

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.

[guonaihong]

It seems that running go test -tags "sonic avx" -v -covermode=count -coverprofile=profile.out will cause a panic. However, I couldn't reproduce this panic because my CPU doesn't support AVX 512 instructions

I've noticed several PRs with the same panic. It seems that the semantic differences between Sonic and the standard library might be causing this, or it could be a bug in Sonic.

@appleboy

[RedCrazyGhost]

Caution should be exercised regarding permission modifications to files

[guonaihong]

These two lines of code are actually the same, except for the representation of file permissions using different formats for octal notation.

In the first line, the file permissions are represented using octal notation, specifically 0750. In octal notation, a number starting with 0 denotes that it's an octal number. Therefore, 0750 represents permissions set to rwxr-x--- (i.e., the owner has read, write, and execute permissions, the group users have read and execute permissions, and others have no permissions).

In the second line, the new octal literal notation is used, denoted by 0o750. In this notation, numbers start with 0o to indicate octal representation. So, 0o750 also represents permissions set to rwxr-x---.

In summary, these two lines of code are entirely equivalent; they just use different formats for representing permissions when using octal notation.