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

feat/conf_map_required #4405

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 12, 2025
Merged

Conversation

MarkJoyMa
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 3, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 94.56%. Comparing base (8690859) to head (786809c).
Report is 212 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
core/mapping/unmarshaler.go 96.25% <100.00%> (-0.24%) ⬇️

... and 7 files with indirect coverage changes

@kevwan kevwan force-pushed the feat/conf_map_required branch from 6658f63 to 786809c Compare January 12, 2025 17:08
@kevwan kevwan added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 12, 2025
Merged via the queue into zeromicro:master with commit 12071d1 Jan 12, 2025
6 checks passed
@kevwan
Copy link
Contributor

kevwan commented Jan 12, 2025

Strengths

  1. ✅ Clear separation of concerns for different types (Map vs Array/Slice)
  2. ✅ Comprehensive test coverage with multiple scenarios
  3. ✅ Backward compatible changes
  4. ✅ Proper error handling for required map fields

Potential Improvements

None identified. The changes are well-implemented and properly tested.

Security Considerations

No security concerns identified. The changes are related to type handling and don't introduce any security vulnerabilities.

Conclusion

This is a solid PR that improves the handling of required map fields in the configuration unmarshaling process. The changes are well-tested and maintain good code quality.

kevwan added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 17, 2025
kevwan added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 22, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants