compare decoded go struct for request body #1876
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1876 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 97.65% 97.65%
=======================================
Files 105 105
Lines 6783 6783
=======================================
Hits 6624 6624
Misses 86 86
Partials 73 73 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
gmlewis
approved these changes
May 26, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The use of
cmp.AllowUnexportedstuck out to me as code smell when reviewing #1875, but since the weird comparison was already there, I decided to leave it alone in that PR.This was a very weird test method, since it doesn't follow the pattern of the rest of go-github for comparing POST request bodies, and as a result makes things way more complicated than they need to be.
This eliminates the
GetReadWriterandGetReadCloserfuncs. There was discussion in #1238 about these potentially being general purpose funcs, but they never ended up being used beyond this one method, nor should they ever be necessary I don't think. Even though these were exported funcs, because they were only defined in the test package, this shouldn't be a breaking change.