refactor: use type switch instead of if-else #595
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces significant modifications across several files in the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
schema.go (1)
Line range hint
1-1037: Overall code quality is good, but there's room for improvementThe codebase demonstrates good organization and attention to detail in handling various aspects of JSON Schema generation and validation. However, there are a few areas where improvements could be made:
Error handling: The code uses panic in several places. While this is sometimes appropriate for truly unrecoverable errors, it might be worth reviewing these instances to see if some could be changed to return errors instead, allowing for more graceful error handling.
Complexity: Some functions, like
SchemaFromType, are quite long and complex. Consider breaking these down into smaller, more focused functions to improve readability and maintainability.Testability: Given the complexity of the schema generation logic, it would be beneficial to ensure comprehensive unit tests are in place, especially for edge cases and error conditions.
Documentation: While the code is generally well-commented, some complex sections could benefit from more detailed explanations, particularly around the reasoning behind certain decisions.
Performance: For frequently called functions, consider if there are any opportunities for optimization, such as using sync.Pool for frequently allocated objects or precomputing certain values.
Consider these points for future refactoring efforts to improve the overall quality and maintainability of the codebase.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
- huma.go (1 hunks)
- schema.go (1 hunks)
- validate.go (1 hunks)
- validate_test.go (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
validate.go (1)
523-528: Good refactoring to use a type switchRefactoring the
if-elsestatements into atype switchenhances code readability and maintainability. The logic remains consistent, and the change correctly handles the typesmap[string]anyandmap[any]any.huma.go (1)
1338-1342: Improved code clarity with type switchRefactoring the type assertion from if-else statements to a type switch enhances readability and maintainability.
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #595 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 92.80% 92.80%
=======================================
Files 22 22
Lines 3903 3907 +4
=======================================
+ Hits 3622 3626 +4
Misses 236 236
Partials 45 45 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
The PR refactors
if-elsewithswitch. This simplifies code a little bit.Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Tests