Accept error and bool with Must()

[mvrahden]

Additionally to error returns, you also often stumble upon boolean returns.

Fictional example:

func Parse(raw string) (out ConcreteType, ok bool)

It is possible to use type switches within generic function, so we could switch for error and bool alike.
Allowing the Must() function to become slightly more generic than it is right now without breaking anything.

[wirekang]

I tried this

And

How about MustOK(Parse(""))?

[samber]

MustOK is good!

[mvrahden]

No need, just allow any instead of error. You throw away compile time type matching for runtime assertion. It's not a problem because people who will use Must() expect their code to panic at this point anyway.

[wirekang]

No need, just allow any instead of error. You throw away compile time type matching for runtime assertion. It's not a problem because people who will use Must() expect their code to panic at this point anyway.

I didn't think that far. Check out my PR. Must* panics when err is error or false. I deleted condition err != nil. Is it okay to ignore cases that err is neither error nor bool?

[mvrahden]

Your PR looks good :) thank your for your support on this 💯

P.S: Just out of curiosity, why is each test case wrapped into separate blocks? I'd probably place them into individual t.Runs instead and give more context via the description. It's probably just a question of preference, but I'm curios anyway

[wirekang]

P.S: Just out of curiosity, why is each test case wrapped into separate blocks? I'd probably place them into individual t.Runs instead and give more context via the description. It's probably just a question of preference, but I'm curios anyway

I copied and modified the existing TestMustX code. There is no other intention.