Add labels option for single file #23
Conversation
WalkthroughThe recent changes introduce the functionality to define section boundaries within files using start and end labels, along with enhancements to error handling and test cases. These updates allow for more precise file modifications by specifying which sections to modify. Additionally, the changes rectify some minor bugs and improve upon existing error-handling mechanisms. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant MainFunction
participant FileProcessor
participant CommentProcessor
User ->> MainFunction: Execute program with flags
MainFunction ->> MainFunction: Parse flags (start-label and end-label)
alt Line flag specified
MainFunction -->> User: Error - Conflicting flags
end
MainFunction ->> FileProcessor: ProcessSingleFile with flags
FileProcessor ->> FileProcessor: Determine section based on labels
FileProcessor ->> CommentProcessor: Modify content in specified section
CommentProcessor -->> FileProcessor: Return modified content
FileProcessor -->> MainFunction: Return result
MainFunction -->> User: Output result
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 as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration 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: 4
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
internal/file/file.go (1)
Line range hint
18-69: Consider handling errors fromCloseandRemovemethods to prevent resource leaks.The static analysis tool
golangci-linthas flagged multiple instances where the error return values ofCloseandRemovemethods are not checked. Ignoring these errors can lead to resource leaks or unhandled exceptions. Here's a proposed fix:- inputFile.Close() + if err := inputFile.Close(); err != nil { + return fmt.Errorf("failed to close input file: %w", err) + } - tmpFile.Close() + if err := tmpFile.Close(); err != nil { + return fmt.Errorf("failed to close temporary file: %w", err) + } - os.Remove(tmpFilename) + if err := os.Remove(tmpFilename); err != nil { + return fmt.Errorf("failed to remove temporary file: %w", err) + }
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (5)
- cmd/tgcom/main.go (1 hunks)
- internal/comment/comment.go (1 hunks)
- internal/file/file.go (6 hunks)
- internal/file/file_test.go (8 hunks)
- internal/language/language.go (1 hunks)
Additional context used
golangci-lint
internal/comment/comment.go
[warning] 30-30: indent-error-flow: if block ends with a return statement, so drop this else and outdent its block (revive)
internal/file/file_test.go
[warning] 70-70: unused-parameter: parameter 'line' seems to be unused, consider removing or renaming it as _ (revive)
internal/file/file.go
23-23: Error return value of
inputFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
43-43: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
47-47: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
48-48: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
55-55: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
56-56: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
62-62: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
63-63: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
69-69: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
80-80: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
Additional comments not posted (7)
internal/language/language.go (1)
10-10: Corrected the spelling of "Python" in the comment characters map.internal/comment/comment.go (1)
17-18: Improved handling of spaces after comment characters inUncomment.cmd/tgcom/main.go (3)
15-16: Addedstart-labelandend-labelflags to define section boundaries.
52-67: Enhanced error handling to prevent simultaneous use oflineandlabelflags.
52-67: Improve clarity of error messages.- fmt.Println("Error: only line OR label flags are allowed not both") + fmt.Println("Error: Specify either line number/range OR label, not both.")Likely invalid or redundant comment.
internal/file/file_test.go (2)
120-132: Added a new test case to verify processing files with specific start and end labels.
26-26: Updated test cases to includestartLabelandendLabelparameters.Also applies to: 37-37, 48-48, 60-60, 75-75, 103-103
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- cmd/tgcom/main.go (1 hunks)
Additional context used
golangci-lint
cmd/tgcom/main.go
23-23: Error return value of
inputFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
43-43: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
47-47: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
48-48: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
55-55: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
56-56: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
62-62: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
63-63: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
69-69: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
80-80: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
[warning] 70-70: unused-parameter: parameter 'line' seems to be unused, consider removing or renaming it as _ (revive)
[warning] 30-30: indent-error-flow: if block ends with a return statement, so drop this else and outdent its block (revive)
Additional comments not posted (3)
cmd/tgcom/main.go (3)
14-16: The introduction ofstartLabelFlagandendLabelFlagaligns with the PR objectives to handle file sections by labels. Ensure that the flag descriptions are clear and concise.
52-63: Excellent error handling for label and line flag conflicts. This prevents ambiguous command usage and enforces clearer user intentions.Tools
golangci-lint
55-55: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
56-56: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
62-62: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
63-63: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
79-81: The error handling inProcessSingleFileis good, but consider logging the error details to help with debugging.- fmt.Println("Error processing file:", err) + fmt.Println("Error processing file:", err.Error())Likely invalid or redundant comment.
Tools
golangci-lint
80-80: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- internal/file/file.go (6 hunks)
- internal/file/file_test.go (8 hunks)
Additional context used
golangci-lint
internal/file/file_test.go
23-23: Error return value of
inputFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
43-43: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
47-47: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
48-48: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
55-55: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
56-56: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
62-62: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
63-63: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
69-69: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
80-80: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
[warning] 30-30: indent-error-flow: if block ends with a return statement, so drop this else and outdent its block (revive)
[warning] 70-70: unused-parameter: parameter 'line' seems to be unused, consider removing or renaming it as _ (revive)
135-135: unnecessary leading newline (whitespace)
internal/file/file.go
23-23: Error return value of
inputFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
43-43: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
47-47: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
48-48: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
55-55: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
56-56: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
62-62: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
63-63: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
69-69: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
80-80: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
[warning] 30-30: indent-error-flow: if block ends with a return statement, so drop this else and outdent its block (revive)
[warning] 70-70: unused-parameter: parameter 'line' seems to be unused, consider removing or renaming it as _ (revive)
135-135: unnecessary leading newline (whitespace)
Additional comments not posted (9)
internal/file/file_test.go (4)
26-26: Consider removing or renaming the unused parameter 'line' as it is not used within the function.
37-37: Ensure proper error handling for non-existing and empty files, and validate the behavior in dry run scenarios.Also applies to: 48-48, 60-60, 75-75, 103-103
120-132: The new test case for label functionality appears to be well-implemented and covers the expected behavior when start and end labels are provided.
181-181: Ensure that theProcessSingleFilefunction correctly handles the absence of labels by falling back to line number processing.internal/file/file.go (5)
Line range hint
18-52: The implementation ofProcessFilefunction now supports both line numbers and labels for file processing. Ensure that the error handling and file operations are robust, especially with the introduction of backup and temporary file mechanisms.Tools
golangci-lint
[warning] 30-30: indent-error-flow: if block ends with a return statement, so drop this else and outdent its block (revive)
84-89: TheshouldProcessLinefunction provides a clear and concise way to determine whether a line should be processed based on the provided labels or line numbers. This is a good use of conditional logic to handle multiple scenarios.
91-123: ThewriteChangesfunction has been updated to handle sections of the file defined by labels. Ensure that the logic for entering and exiting sections is correctly implemented and that the file writing operations are error-free.
130-153: TheprintChangesfunction mirrors the logic ofwriteChangesbut for dry run scenarios where changes are printed instead of written. This consistency in handling both scenarios is crucial for maintaining predictable behavior.Tools
golangci-lint
135-135: unnecessary leading newline (whitespace)
189-204: TheProcessSingleFilefunction has been refactored to integrate label handling. Ensure that the error handling is consistent and that the function can gracefully handle both labels and line numbers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 4
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
internal/file/file.go (1)
Line range hint
18-52: The addition of label parameters enhances the flexibility of file processing. Ensure to handle the error return values from file operations to prevent potential resource leaks.+ if err := inputFile.Close(); err != nil { + log.Printf("Failed to close input file: %v", err) + } + if err := tmpFile.Close(); err != nil { + log.Printf("Failed to close temporary file: %v", err) + }
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- internal/comment/comment.go (2 hunks)
- internal/file/file.go (6 hunks)
Additional context used
golangci-lint
internal/comment/comment.go
23-23: Error return value of
inputFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
43-43: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
47-47: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
48-48: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
55-55: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
56-56: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
62-62: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
63-63: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
69-69: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
80-80: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
139-139: File is not
goimports-ed (goimports)
[warning] 70-70: unused-parameter: parameter 'line' seems to be unused, consider removing or renaming it as _ (revive)
136-136: unnecessary leading newline (whitespace)
internal/file/file.go
23-23: Error return value of
inputFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
43-43: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
47-47: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
48-48: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
55-55: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
56-56: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
62-62: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
63-63: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
69-69: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
80-80: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
139-139: File is not
goimports-ed (goimports)
[warning] 70-70: unused-parameter: parameter 'line' seems to be unused, consider removing or renaming it as _ (revive)
136-136: unnecessary leading newline (whitespace)
Additional comments not posted (2)
internal/comment/comment.go (2)
9-12: The HTML comment handling looks correct and concise.
52-63: The toggling of HTML comments is consistent with the rest of the module's handling of comment characters.Tools
golangci-lint
55-55: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
56-56: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
62-62: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
63-63: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
internal/comment/comment.go
Outdated
|
|
||
| //just for html | ||
| if commentChars == "<!-- -->" { | ||
| if strings.HasPrefix(trimmedLine, "<!--") && strings.HasSuffix(trimmedLine, "-->") { | ||
| // Check for both `<!--` and `<!-- ` prefixes. | ||
| if strings.HasPrefix(trimmedLine, "<!--"+" ") { | ||
| line = strings.Replace(line, "<!-- ", "", 1) | ||
| line = strings.Replace(line, "<!--", "", 1) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Check for both '-->' and ' -->' suffixes | ||
| if strings.HasSuffix(trimmedLine, " "+"-->") { | ||
| line = strings.Replace(line, " "+"-->", "", 1) | ||
| line = strings.Replace(line, "-->", "", 1) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return line | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The updated handling of HTML comments improves accuracy. Consider adding a brief comment explaining the logic for future maintainability.
+ // Handle HTML comments by checking for optional spaces after the prefix and before the suffix.Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| //just for html | |
| if commentChars == "<!-- -->" { | |
| if strings.HasPrefix(trimmedLine, "<!--") && strings.HasSuffix(trimmedLine, "-->") { | |
| // Check for both `<!--` and `<!-- ` prefixes. | |
| if strings.HasPrefix(trimmedLine, "<!--"+" ") { | |
| line = strings.Replace(line, "<!-- ", "", 1) | |
| line = strings.Replace(line, "<!--", "", 1) | |
| } | |
| // Check for both '-->' and ' -->' suffixes | |
| if strings.HasSuffix(trimmedLine, " "+"-->") { | |
| line = strings.Replace(line, " "+"-->", "", 1) | |
| line = strings.Replace(line, "-->", "", 1) | |
| } | |
| return line | |
| } | |
| } | |
| //just for html | |
| if commentChars == "<!-- -->" { | |
| if strings.HasPrefix(trimmedLine, "<!--") && strings.HasSuffix(trimmedLine, "-->") { | |
| // Handle HTML comments by checking for optional spaces after the prefix and before the suffix. | |
| if strings.HasPrefix(trimmedLine, "<!--"+" ") { | |
| line = strings.Replace(line, "<!-- ", "", 1) | |
| line = strings.Replace(line, "<!--", "", 1) | |
| } | |
| // Check for both '-->' and ' -->' suffixes | |
| if strings.HasSuffix(trimmedLine, " "+"-->") { | |
| line = strings.Replace(line, " "+"-->", "", 1) | |
| line = strings.Replace(line, "-->", "", 1) | |
| } | |
| return line | |
| } | |
| } |
Tools
golangci-lint
23-23: Error return value of
inputFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
| func writeChanges(inputFile *os.File, outputFile *os.File, lineNum [2]int, startLabel, endLabel string, commentChars string, modFunc func(string, string) string) error { | ||
| scanner := bufio.NewScanner(inputFile) | ||
| writer := bufio.NewWriter(outputFile) | ||
| currentLine := 1 | ||
| inSection := false | ||
| var err error | ||
|
|
||
| for scanner.Scan() { | ||
| lineContent := scanner.Text() | ||
| if lineNum[0] <= currentLine && currentLine <= lineNum[1] { | ||
|
|
||
| if strings.Contains(lineContent, endLabel) { | ||
| inSection = false | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if shouldProcessLine(currentLine, lineNum, startLabel, endLabel, inSection) { | ||
| lineContent = modFunc(lineContent, commentChars) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if _, err := writer.WriteString(lineContent + "\n"); err != nil { | ||
| if strings.Contains(lineContent, startLabel) { | ||
| inSection = true | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if _, err = writer.WriteString(lineContent + "\n"); err != nil { | ||
| return err | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| currentLine++ | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if lineNum[1] > currentLine { | ||
| if lineNum[1] > currentLine && startLabel == "" && endLabel == "" { | ||
| return errors.New("line number is out of range") | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if err := scanner.Err(); err != nil { | ||
| if err = scanner.Err(); err != nil { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The implementation for writing changes based on labels is correct. Consider refactoring to reduce code duplication between writeChanges and printChanges.
+ // Use a helper function to determine if a line should be processed.
+ func shouldProcessLine(lineContent string, currentLine int, lineNum [2]int, startLabel, endLabel string) bool {
+ if startLabel != "" && endLabel != "" {
+ return strings.Contains(lineContent, startLabel) || strings.Contains(lineContent, endLabel)
+ }
+ return lineNum[0] <= currentLine && currentLine <= lineNum[1]
+ }Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| func ProcessSingleFile(filename string, lineStr, startLabel, endLabel string, modFunc func(string, string) string, dryRun bool) error { | ||
| commentChars, err := selectCommentChars(filename) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return err | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("error selecting comment characters: %w", err) | ||
| } | ||
| lineNum := [2]int{startLine, endLine} | ||
|
|
||
| commentChars, err := selectCommentChars(filename) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return err | ||
| var lineNum [2]int | ||
| if startLabel == "" && endLabel == "" { | ||
| startLine, endLine, err := extractLines(lineStr) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf("error extracting line numbers: %w", err) | ||
| } | ||
| lineNum = [2]int{startLine, endLine} | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return ProcessFile(filename, lineNum, commentChars, modFunc, dryRun) | ||
| return ProcessFile(filename, lineNum, startLabel, endLabel, commentChars, modFunc, dryRun) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The updates to handle labels and improve error messages enhance the function's usability and robustness. Consider using consistent error handling across all file operations.
+ if err := os.Remove(tmpFilename); err != nil {
+ log.Printf("Failed to remove temporary file: %v", err)
+ }Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
| func printChanges(inputFile *os.File, lineNum [2]int, startLabel, endLabel, commentChars string, modFunc func(string, string) string) error { | ||
| scanner := bufio.NewScanner(inputFile) | ||
| currentLine := 1 | ||
| inSection := false | ||
|
|
||
| for scanner.Scan() { | ||
|
|
||
| lineContent := scanner.Text() | ||
| if lineNum[0] <= currentLine && currentLine <= lineNum[1] { | ||
|
|
||
| if strings.Contains(lineContent, endLabel) { | ||
| inSection = false | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if shouldProcessLine(currentLine, lineNum, startLabel, endLabel, inSection) { | ||
| modified := modFunc(lineContent, commentChars) | ||
| fmt.Printf("%d: %s -> %s\n", currentLine, lineContent, modified) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if strings.Contains(lineContent, startLabel) { | ||
| inSection = true | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| currentLine++ | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if lineNum[1] > currentLine { | ||
| if lineNum[1] > currentLine && startLabel == "" && endLabel == "" { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The function for printing changes during a dry run is implemented correctly. Ensure to handle potential errors from the scanner to prevent silent failures.
+ if err := scanner.Err(); err != nil {
+ log.Printf("Failed to scan file: %v", err)
+ }Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| func printChanges(inputFile *os.File, lineNum [2]int, startLabel, endLabel, commentChars string, modFunc func(string, string) string) error { | |
| scanner := bufio.NewScanner(inputFile) | |
| currentLine := 1 | |
| inSection := false | |
| for scanner.Scan() { | |
| lineContent := scanner.Text() | |
| if lineNum[0] <= currentLine && currentLine <= lineNum[1] { | |
| if strings.Contains(lineContent, endLabel) { | |
| inSection = false | |
| } | |
| if shouldProcessLine(currentLine, lineNum, startLabel, endLabel, inSection) { | |
| modified := modFunc(lineContent, commentChars) | |
| fmt.Printf("%d: %s -> %s\n", currentLine, lineContent, modified) | |
| } | |
| if strings.Contains(lineContent, startLabel) { | |
| inSection = true | |
| } | |
| currentLine++ | |
| } | |
| if lineNum[1] > currentLine { | |
| if lineNum[1] > currentLine && startLabel == "" && endLabel == "" { | |
| func printChanges(inputFile *os.File, lineNum [2]int, startLabel, endLabel, commentChars string, modFunc func(string, string) string) error { | |
| scanner := bufio.NewScanner(inputFile) | |
| currentLine := 1 | |
| inSection := false | |
| for scanner.Scan() { | |
| lineContent := scanner.Text() | |
| if strings.Contains(lineContent, endLabel) { | |
| inSection = false | |
| } | |
| if shouldProcessLine(currentLine, lineNum, startLabel, endLabel, inSection) { | |
| modified := modFunc(lineContent, commentChars) | |
| fmt.Printf("%d: %s -> %s\n", currentLine, lineContent, modified) | |
| } | |
| if strings.Contains(lineContent, startLabel) { | |
| inSection = true | |
| } | |
| currentLine++ | |
| } | |
| if err := scanner.Err(); err != nil { | |
| log.Printf("Failed to scan file: %v", err) | |
| } | |
| if lineNum[1] > currentLine && startLabel == "" && endLabel == "" { |
Tools
golangci-lint
139-139: File is not
goimports-ed (goimports)
136-136: unnecessary leading newline (whitespace)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
cmd/tgcom/main.go (1)
Line range hint
1-1: The file should be formatted according to Go standards usinggoimports.- // Current file content + // goimports formatted file contentPlease run
goimportson this file to ensure it adheres to the Go style guide.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (3)
- cmd/tgcom/main.go (3 hunks)
- internal/file/file.go (6 hunks)
- internal/file/file_test.go (8 hunks)
Additional context used
golangci-lint
cmd/tgcom/main.go
1-1: File is not
goimports-ed (goimports)internal/file/file_test.go
[warning] 69-69: unused-parameter: parameter 'line' seems to be unused, consider removing or renaming it as _ (revive)
internal/file/file.go
23-23: Error return value of
inputFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
43-43: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
47-47: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
48-48: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
55-55: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
56-56: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
62-62: Error return value of
tmpFile.Closeis not checked (errcheck)
63-63: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
69-69: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
80-80: Error return value of
os.Removeis not checked (errcheck)
139-139: File is not
goimports-ed (goimports)
136-136: unnecessary leading newline (whitespace)
Additional comments not posted (9)
cmd/tgcom/main.go (4)
16-17: The introduction ofstart-labelandend-labelflags is a good addition for specifying section boundaries. Make sure to update the documentation to explain how users can utilize these new flags effectively.
25-26: Ensure thatstartLabelandendLabelare properly retrieved from the flags. Good implementation of flag parsing.
53-64: Excellent error handling to ensure that users provide both start and end labels if one is specified, and to prevent the use of both line numbers and labels simultaneously. This should prevent common user errors.
[APROVED]
81-81: The call tofile.ProcessSingleFilecorrectly includes the new label parameters. Ensure that theProcessSingleFilefunction is updated accordingly to handle these parameters.Verification successful
The
ProcessSingleFilefunction ininternal/file/file.gocorrectly handles the new label parametersstartLabelandendLabel. The parameters are used to determine the line range or labels for processing the file, and they are passed to theProcessFilefunction for further handling.
internal/file/file.go:
- The
ProcessSingleFilefunction includesstartLabelandendLabelparameters.- These parameters are used within the function to determine the processing logic and are passed to
ProcessFile.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that `ProcessSingleFile` function handles the new label parameters correctly. # Test: Search for the function definition and ensure it includes handling for `startLabel` and `endLabel`. rg --type go $'func ProcessSingleFile'Length of output: 197
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Verify that `ProcessSingleFile` function handles the new label parameters correctly. # Locate the implementation of the ProcessSingleFile function and display its content. rg --type go --context 20 $'func ProcessSingleFile' internal/file/file.goLength of output: 1265
internal/file/file_test.go (3)
25-25: The test forProcessFileis well-implemented and checks for correct behavior when labels are not provided. Ensure that additional tests are added to verify the behavior when labels are used.
36-36: The test cases are comprehensive and cover a variety of scenarios including error handling and dry runs. The addition of the "Labels" test case is particularly valuable for testing the new label functionality.Also applies to: 47-47, 59-59, 74-74, 102-102, 119-131
180-180: TheProcessSingleFiletest checks the error handling correctly. Ensure that the function itself handles errors as expected and consider adding more detailed error messages for better debugging.internal/file/file.go (2)
18-18: The modifications toProcessFile,printChanges, andwriteChangesto include label handling are well done. TheshouldProcessLinefunction is a good addition to encapsulate the logic for deciding whether a line should be processed based on labels or line numbers.Also applies to: 27-27, 52-52, 84-89, 91-91, 131-131
192-207: TheProcessSingleFilefunction has been updated to handle the new label parameters effectively. The error handling improvements, such as wrapping errors with additional context, are excellent for troubleshooting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- internal/file/file_test.go (8 hunks)
Additional context used
golangci-lint
internal/file/file_test.go
[warning] 69-69: unused-parameter: parameter 'line' seems to be unused, consider removing or renaming it as _ (revive)
Additional comments not posted (8)
internal/file/file_test.go (8)
25-25: Ensure theProcessFilefunction is called with the correct parameters.
36-36: Test case for non-existing file correctly expects an error. This is a good practice to ensure robust error handling.
47-47: Good test coverage for edge cases like an empty file, ensuring the function behaves as expected under different conditions.
59-59: TheProcessFilefunction is tested for multiple lines, which is crucial for ensuring that the function handles ranges correctly.
[APROVED]
74-74: The test case 'WithBackup' is designed to expect an error when no changes are made. This is a good practice for testing the robustness of error handling.
102-102: The dry run functionality is well tested here. Capturing stdout to check the output is a smart way to ensure that the dry run logs the expected changes without making actual modifications.
119-131: The test case 'Labels' effectively checks the functionality of processing files with start and end labels. This is a crucial test given the new feature added to handle labels.
180-180: TheProcessSingleFilefunction is called within a loop for different test scenarios. It's good to see various edge cases being tested.
Add label option possibility
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
start-labelandend-labelflags to define file section boundaries for processing.lineorlabelflags can be specified.Bug Fixes
CommentCharsmap.Tests