Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
WalkthroughThe changes introduce new message content types ( Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Client
participant Message
participant Validator
Client->>Message: Create Message (with one of Message, TextMessage, DataMessage)
Client->>Validator: Validate(Message)
alt Only one message field set
Validator-->>Client: Validation Success
else None or multiple fields set
Validator-->>Client: Validation Error
end
sequenceDiagram
participant System
participant WebhookHandler
System->>WebhookHandler: Emit WebhookEventSmsDataReceived
WebhookHandler-->>System: Handle event as valid type
Warning There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool's configuration or disable the tool if it's a critical failure. 🔧 golangci-lint (1.64.8)Error: you are using a configuration file for golangci-lint v2 with golangci-lint v1: please use golangci-lint v2 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
🧰 Additional context used🧬 Code Graph Analysis (2)smsgateway/domain_messages_test.go (3)
smsgateway/domain_messages.go (2)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
🔇 Additional comments (7)
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate Unit Tests
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. 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 (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
smsgateway/client_test.go(1 hunks)smsgateway/domain_messages.go(2 hunks)smsgateway/domain_messages_test.go(1 hunks)smsgateway/domain_webhooks.go(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code Graph Analysis (2)
smsgateway/domain_messages_test.go (3)
smsgateway/domain_messages.go (3)
Message(54-82)TextMessage(40-43)DataMessage(46-51)ca/errors.go (1)
ErrValidationFailed(6-6)smsgateway/types.go (2)
ErrValidationFailed(6-6)ErrConflictFields(7-7)
smsgateway/domain_messages.go (2)
ca/errors.go (1)
ErrValidationFailed(6-6)smsgateway/types.go (2)
ErrValidationFailed(6-6)ErrConflictFields(7-7)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: Test
- GitHub Check: Lint
🔇 Additional comments (4)
smsgateway/domain_webhooks.go (1)
13-14: LGTM! Webhook event type correctly added.The new
WebhookEventSmsDataReceivedevent type is properly integrated following the existing pattern:
- Declared as a constant with appropriate documentation
- Added to the validation map
- Included in the list of available event types
Also applies to: 28-28, 39-39
smsgateway/client_test.go (1)
29-29: Test validation correctly updated for new message structure.The change from checking for empty message to checking for null phoneNumbers aligns with the refactored message validation logic where phoneNumbers is required but message content can be provided through multiple optional fields.
smsgateway/domain_messages_test.go (1)
11-117: Excellent test coverage for new message types!The test suite comprehensively covers:
- Getter methods for both message types with backward compatibility
- Validation of mutual exclusivity between message fields
- Edge cases with empty content
- All possible combinations of message field settings
Also applies to: 121-299
smsgateway/domain_messages.go (1)
84-104: Well-designed backward compatibility!The getter methods provide a clean API:
GetTextMessage()elegantly handles both the new field and deprecated fieldGetDataMessage()is appropriately simple- This design allows smooth migration from the deprecated field
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
♻️ Duplicate comments (1)
smsgateway/domain_messages.go (1)
122-122: Error messages still exclude the deprecated field.The validation error messages still don't mention the deprecated
messagefield, which could confuse users who are still using it. This was identified in a previous review but hasn't been addressed.Apply this diff to make the error messages more accurate:
- return fmt.Errorf("%w: must specify exactly one of: textMessage or dataMessage", ErrValidationFailed) + return fmt.Errorf("%w: must specify exactly one of: message, textMessage, or dataMessage", ErrValidationFailed)- return fmt.Errorf("%w: must specify exactly one of: textMessage or dataMessage", ErrConflictFields) + return fmt.Errorf("%w: must specify exactly one of: message, textMessage, or dataMessage", ErrConflictFields)Also applies to: 125-125
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
smsgateway/domain_messages_test.go (1)
228-230: Clarify validation behavior for empty struct fields.The comments state that empty text/data is valid because "validation is only for field presence". However, this might be misleading since the actual field validation (like
required,base64) would occur at a different layer (likely through struct tags). Consider clarifying that this test only covers the message type presence validation, not the inner field validation.Consider updating the comments to be more precise:
- err: nil, // Empty text is valid, validation is only for field presence + err: nil, // Empty text passes presence check; field validation occurs separately- err: nil, // Empty data is valid, validation is only for field presence + err: nil, // Empty data passes presence check; field validation occurs separatelyAlso applies to: 239-241
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
smsgateway/domain_messages.go(2 hunks)smsgateway/domain_messages_test.go(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code Graph Analysis (2)
smsgateway/domain_messages_test.go (3)
smsgateway/domain_messages.go (3)
Message(54-82)TextMessage(40-43)DataMessage(46-51)ca/errors.go (1)
ErrValidationFailed(6-6)smsgateway/types.go (2)
ErrValidationFailed(6-6)ErrConflictFields(7-7)
smsgateway/domain_messages.go (2)
ca/errors.go (1)
ErrValidationFailed(6-6)smsgateway/types.go (2)
ErrValidationFailed(6-6)ErrConflictFields(7-7)
🔇 Additional comments (7)
smsgateway/domain_messages.go (3)
48-48: Base64 example is now correct.The base64 example has been fixed from the invalid "Hello World!" to the proper base64 encoding "SGVsbG8gV29ybGQh".
84-99: Well-implemented backward compatibility.The
GetTextMessage()method elegantly handles backward compatibility by constructing aTextMessagefrom the deprecatedMessagefield when needed. The logic correctly prioritizes the explicitTextMessagefield over the deprecated field.
101-104: Simple and correct getter implementation.The
GetDataMessage()method is straightforward and correctly returns theDataMessagepointer.smsgateway/domain_messages_test.go (4)
11-66: Comprehensive test coverage for GetTextMessage().The test cases thoroughly cover all scenarios: explicit
TextMessagefield, backward compatibility with deprecatedMessagefield, and the case where neither is set. The test logic correctly validates both nil and non-nil return values.
68-117: Good test coverage for GetDataMessage().The test cases properly cover both the presence and absence of the
DataMessagefield. The test logic correctly validates the returned pointer and its field values.
219-219: Comment has been corrected.The comment on line 219 has been updated to accurately reflect that "Empty string is treated as field not set" instead of the previous misleading comment. This addresses the past review feedback.
125-242: Excellent validation test coverage.The expanded test cases comprehensively cover all validation scenarios:
- Valid cases with each individual message type
- Invalid cases with no message fields set
- Invalid cases with multiple message fields set (all combinations)
- Edge cases with empty values
The test expectations correctly match the validation logic implementation.
93e93f1 to
6a0c4d8
Compare
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Tests