Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

bind_test.go (2)

992-1032: LGTM! Consider adding edge cases.

The new test cases effectively validate both dot notation and square bracket syntax for multipart form data binding. The tests are well-structured and consistent with the existing test patterns.

Consider adding test cases for:

• Empty arrays
• Invalid indices
• Mixed notation (e.g., data[0].name and data.1[name])
• Special characters in field names

---

Line range hint 992-1302: Overall implementation looks solid

The implementation successfully adds support for square bracket notation in multipart binding while maintaining compatibility with dot notation. The test coverage is good, though it could be expanded to cover more edge cases. The benchmarks provide performance validation but need the variable fixes mentioned above.

Since this feature provides two different notations for the same functionality, consider:

1. Documenting the preferred notation in comments
2. Adding examples in the test file showing when to use each notation
3. Ensuring consistent performance between both notations through benchmarks

🧰 Tools

🪛 GitHub Check: unit (1.23.x, macos-13)

[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1277-1277:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1278-1278:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1279-1279:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1280-1280:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1281-1281:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1282-1282:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t

🪛 GitHub Check: unit (1.23.x, macos-latest)

[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1277-1277:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1278-1278:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1279-1279:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1280-1280:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1281-1281:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1282-1282:
undefined: t

🪛 GitHub Check: unit (1.23.x, ubuntu-latest)

[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1277-1277:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1278-1278:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1279-1279:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1280-1280:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1281-1281:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1282-1282:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t

🪛 GitHub Check: lint

[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1277-1277:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1278-1278:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1279-1279:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1280-1280:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1281-1281:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1282-1282:
undefined: t (typecheck)

---

[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t

---

[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

binder/form.go (1)

71-77: Consider adding debug logging for complex transformations

While the comma-splitting logic is correct, adding debug logging would help troubleshoot issues in production.

 for _, v := range values {
+    // Debug: log.Debug().Str("key", key).Str("value", v).Msg("Processing multipart form value")
     if strings.Contains(v, ",") && equalFieldType(out, reflect.Slice, key) {
         temp[key] = strings.Split(v, ",")
     } else {
         temp[key] = append(temp[key], v)
     }
 }

🧰 Tools

🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch

[warning] 72-75: binder/form.go#L72-L75
Added lines #L72 - L75 were not covered by tests

---

[warning] 77-77: binder/form.go#L77
Added line #L77 was not covered by tests

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

#!/bin/bash
# Search for parseParamSquareBrackets implementation and its tests
ast-grep --pattern 'func parseParamSquareBrackets($$$) {
  $$$
}'

# Search for test cases
rg -A 5 'Test.*parseParamSquareBrackets'

#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find the implementation and tests
# First, let's find the file containing the function
rg -l "parseParamSquareBrackets"

# Then let's look at the implementation and surrounding context
rg -B 5 -A 10 "func parseParamSquareBrackets"

# Also search for test files
fd -e go -e _test.go

#!/bin/bash
# Let's look at the complete implementation and tests
rg -A 20 'func parseParamSquareBrackets' binder/mapping.go

# Get the test cases
rg -A 20 'parseParamSquareBrackets' binder/mapping_test.go

#!/bin/bash
# Let's get more context from the test file to see the test cases
rg -B 10 -A 5 'parseParamSquareBrackets' binder/mapping_test.go

# And let's get the complete implementation as the previous command didn't show the full function
rg -B 2 -A 30 'func parseParamSquareBrackets' binder/mapping.go

#!/bin/bash
# Let's get the full test cases to see all the scenarios being tested
rg -B 20 -A 5 'result, err := parseParamSquareBrackets' binder/mapping_test.go

#!/bin/bash
# Let's get the complete test cases from the beginning
rg -B 30 'result, err := parseParamSquareBrackets' binder/mapping_test.go

 buf := &bytes.Buffer{}
 writer := multipart.NewWriter(buf)
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("name", "john"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons.0.name", "john"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons[0][age]", "10"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons[1][name]", "doe"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons.1.age", "20"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.Close())
+if err := writer.WriteField("name", "john"); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons.0.name", "john"); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons[0][age]", "10"); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons[1][name]", "doe"); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons.1.age", "20"); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.Close(); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}

 buf := &bytes.Buffer{}
 writer := multipart.NewWriter(buf)
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("name", "john"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.Close())
+if err := writer.WriteField("name", "john"); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.Close(); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}

bind_test.go (3)

1001-1020: ⚠️ Potential issue

Add error handling for multipart operations

The test case should handle potential errors from multipart operations.

Apply this diff:

 buf := &bytes.Buffer{}
 writer := multipart.NewWriter(buf)
-require.NoError(t, writer.WriteField("data.0.name", "john"))
-require.NoError(t, writer.WriteField("data.1.name", "doe"))
-require.NoError(t, writer.Close())
+if err := writer.WriteField("data.0.name", "john"); err != nil {
+    t.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("data.1.name", "doe"); err != nil {
+    t.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.Close(); err != nil {
+    t.Fatal(err)
+}

---

1022-1041: ⚠️ Potential issue

Add error handling for square bracket notation test

Similar to the dot notation test, this test case should handle potential errors.

Apply this diff:

 buf := &bytes.Buffer{}
 writer := multipart.NewWriter(buf)
-require.NoError(t, writer.WriteField("data[0][name]", "john"))
-require.NoError(t, writer.WriteField("data[1][name]", "doe"))
-require.NoError(t, writer.Close())
+if err := writer.WriteField("data[0][name]", "john"); err != nil {
+    t.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("data[1][name]", "doe"); err != nil {
+    t.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.Close(); err != nil {
+    t.Fatal(err)
+}

---

1239-1259: ⚠️ Potential issue

Fix benchmark test variable usage

The benchmark is using t instead of b for assertions.

Apply this diff:

 buf := &bytes.Buffer{}
 writer := multipart.NewWriter(buf)
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("name", "john"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.Close())
+if err := writer.WriteField("name", "john"); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.Close(); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}

binder/form.go (1)

80-87: Consider optimizing value handling

The nested loop for handling values could be optimized by pre-allocating the slice capacity when splitting comma-separated values.

Apply this optimization:

 for _, v := range values {
   if strings.Contains(v, ",") && equalFieldType(out, reflect.Slice, key) {
-    temp[key] = strings.Split(v, ",")
+    parts := strings.Split(v, ",")
+    temp[key] = make([]string, len(parts))
+    copy(temp[key], parts)
   } else {
     temp[key] = append(temp[key], v)
   }
 }

🧰 Tools

🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch

[warning] 82-82: binder/form.go#L82
Added line #L82 was not covered by tests

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

 buf := &bytes.Buffer{}
 writer := multipart.NewWriter(buf)
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("name", "john"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons.0.name", "john"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons[0][age]", "10"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons[1][name]", "doe"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons.1.age", "20"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.Close())
+if err := writer.WriteField("name", "john"); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons.0.name", "john"); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons[0][age]", "10"); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons[1][name]", "doe"); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons.1.age", "20"); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.Close(); err != nil {
+    b.Fatal(err)
+}

binder/form_test.go (1)

137-142: Verifying all integer and string fields together ensures consistent binding.
These assertions comprehensively validate Names and Posts. The approach checks that multiple values are properly stored, including "eric," and that a fixed number of posts is parsed correctly.

For formatting, consider addressing the gofumpt warning on line 142 for consistency with Go style guidelines.

🧰 Tools

🪛 golangci-lint (1.62.2)

142-142: File is not gofumpt-ed with -extra

(gofumpt)

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

binder/mapping.go (1)

259-266: Consider literal commas vs. delimiter-based splitting.

Checking only for strings.Contains(value, ",") might catch legitimate commas that users do not intend as delimiters. If literal commas need to be supported, consider a more robust approach or additional flags to distinguish delimiter commas from literal commas. However, if comma-splitting is the intended behavior, this is acceptable.

binder/form.go (1)

69-73: Add tests to fully cover the comma-splitting logic.

According to static analysis, lines covering the error check around comma-splitting are not exercised. A test scenario with invalid or unexpected comma usage would ensure robust coverage. Consider adding a test with malformed comma-based data to confirm the error handling.

Do you need help creating a specialized unit test for that scenario?

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro