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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

#110 - Fix Slice bug producing a \n when provided with an empty slice #115

Open
wants to merge 12 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

#110 - Fix Slice bug producing a \n when provided with an empty slice #115

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 8 commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
04c4e92
Added if statement that returns no new line if there an empty splice
hsheikhali1 May 3, 2022
12bf171
add todo nnote
hsheikhali1 May 3, 2022
21d3ec1
added passing test
hsheikhali1P May 10, 2022
308cdc6
removed commented out string
hsheikhali1P May 10, 2022
195bc2f
removed tests for list files and moved them
hsheikhali1 May 10, 2022
7c6bf02
removed todo
hsheikhali1 May 10, 2022
ea4b50d
updated test to include an empty list
hsheikhali1 May 11, 2022
99fc5ae
removed log package ...
hsheikhali1 May 14, 2022
32cfe70
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin' into hsheikhali/fix-slice-bug
hsheikhali1P Aug 26, 2022
1786a6d
added suggestions
hsheikhali1P Aug 26, 2022
b3566e4
fixing commit history
hsheikhali1 Aug 26, 2022
f6676bd
fixing commit history
hsheikhali1 Aug 26, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions script.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -291,6 +291,9 @@ func ListFiles(path string) *Pipe {
// Slice creates a pipe containing each element of the supplied slice of
// strings, one per line.
func Slice(s []string) *Pipe {
if len(s) <= 0 {
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems unlikely that len(s) could be less than zero, doesn't it?

Clearly the special case here is where the length equals zero, but it seems a shame to duplicate virtually the whole function for this case. Actually, the difference in behaviour is whether or not we add a final newline. It seems slightly neater to me to isolate just that in the special-case branch.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And if s has zero elements, there's no need to call strings.Join in any case: there's nothing to join.

Instead, what about:

if len(s) == 0 {
	return NewPipe()
}
return Echo(strings.Join(s, "\n") + "\n")

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's a very good point ! @bitfield thanks!

return Echo(strings.Join(s, ""))
}
return Echo(strings.Join(s, "\n") + "\n")
}

Expand Down
15 changes: 15 additions & 0 deletions script_test.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1120,6 +1120,21 @@ func TestSliceProducesElementsOfSpecifiedSliceOnePerLine(t *testing.T) {
}
}

func TestSliceProducesNoElementsWhenProvidedWithAnEmptyList(t *testing.T) {
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually, since the result of Slice is a Pipe, maybe we should say something like:

func TestSliceGivenEmptySliceProducesEmptyPipe

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And we could probably use an extra test here for the non-empty slice behaviour, couldn't we? (The fact that we don't have one is entirely on me, but this is a good chance to add it.)

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Doesn't this test cover non-empty slice behaviour ?

func TestSliceProducesElementsOfSpecifiedSliceOnePerLine(t *testing.T) {
	t.Parallel()
	want := "1\n2\n3\n"
	got, err := script.Slice([]string{"1", "2", "3"}).String()
	if err != nil {
		t.Fatal(err)
	}
	if !cmp.Equal(want, got) {
		t.Error(cmp.Diff(want, got))
	}
}

t.Parallel()

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is great, but it's house style with this project to use no blank lines within functions. To my mind, they just make the function longer without providing any benefit.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a thing I have built into muscle memory from my typescript work.. I noticed some Go devs prefer not to have a bunch of blank lines

want := ""
got, err := script.Slice([]string{}).String()

if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}

if !cmp.Equal(want, got) {
t.Error(cmp.Diff(want, got))
}
}

func TestStdinReadsFromProgramStandardInput(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
// dummy test to prove coverage
Expand Down