Skip to content
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

Remove functional option caller name match expectation #1381

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

dillonstreator
Copy link
Contributor

@dillonstreator dillonstreator commented May 11, 2023

Summary

Fixes #1380 by removing expectations around optional functions calling function names. These assertions are not necessary to satisfy the testing use case for functional options and are in fact just outright incorrect due to the curried nature of the optional function. The time at which the return function from the optional function is evaluated, the optional function name is no longer accessible/in-scope.

Changes

  • Removes expectation around functional options caller name matching as it is not guaranteed and not truly asserting the functional options function name.
  • Adds test to cover additional use case.
  • Introduces a strict length check on the function options.

Motivation

Fix bug and improve test to cover additional use cases.

Related issues

Closes #1380

@dillonstreator
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nbaztec curious to get your feedback on this as you implemented most of the initial version of functional options support

@nbaztec
Copy link
Contributor

nbaztec commented May 11, 2023

I might've been too strict in ensuring that exactly the intended option is passed, ergo the explicit nature of providing the option name as well (which we removed as part of the original PR). As of now I cannot seem to think of a use-case where that might be absolutely necessary, as such if the other tests pass, perhaps we can go forward with it.

@dillonstreator
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @boyan-soubachov, could you please review this PR and provide feedback? It's currently blocking one of the primary use cases for testing functional options. Your insights would be greatly appreciated.

@dolmen
Copy link
Collaborator

dolmen commented Jul 5, 2023

@dillonstreator Please rebase this PR as it includes gofmt 1.20 formatting changes that have already been applied. Those change pollute the diff and make reviewing harder.

@dolmen dolmen added Changes Requested pkg-mock Any issues related to Mock labels Jul 5, 2023
@dillonstreator
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dolmen thanks for the heads-up - rebased 👍

@dolmen
Copy link
Collaborator

dolmen commented Jul 25, 2023

Please don't merge master into your branch.

Instead:

git remote update
git rebase origin/master
git push -f

SuperQ and others added 2 commits August 12, 2023 23:46
Test old Go versions all the way back to 1.17.

Signed-off-by: SuperQ <superq@gmail.com>
@dillonstreator
Copy link
Contributor Author

Please don't merge master into your branch.

Instead:

git remote update
git rebase origin/master
git push -f

@dolmen executing this wiped my changes

@dolmen
Copy link
Collaborator

dolmen commented Oct 16, 2023

No more patch in this MR :(

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pkg-mock Any issues related to Mock
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Functional Options testing broken for indirect calls
5 participants