Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.68293% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 77.93%. Comparing base (153db4e) to head (f91598d).
Report is 35 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #597      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   83.21%   77.93%   -5.28%     
==========================================
  Files          28       41      +13     
  Lines        3413     4074     +661     
==========================================
+ Hits         2840     3175     +335     
- Misses        458      780     +322     
- Partials      115      119       +4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Ant tests?

Sorry just noticed this comment - if this approach is acceptable @Johnlon (recovering panics instead of changing the return signatures of everything), I'm happy to add tests etc in order to get this mergeable.

Will take a look shortly at what is needed.

I'm on holiday so can't remind myself about this.
your comment,"instead of changing signatures" sounds like you might be trying to make a compromise? maybe? anyway I wouldn't bother with compromising anything. just do what ever is the simple and clean thing to improve the code base and functionality.

I'm on holiday so can't remind myself about this. your comment,"instead of changing signatures" sounds like you might be trying to make a compromise? maybe? anyway I wouldn't bother with compromising anything. just do what ever is the simple and clean thing to improve the code base and functionality.

Hi there - sorry I was myself away on holiday when you replied @Johnlon :)

This PR was the smallest change to fix the issue - by recovering the panics that cause the issue and handling them that way. It works, but a more 'idiomatic go' solution would be to change the function signature that is panicking to return an error, and change all the places it is used to handle the error.

That would be a much, much bigger change though - hence my question about whether this approach of just catching the panics was acceptable here.

If there's no objection to this panic-recovering approach, it would be my preference to keep the change small and I'll add some tests to cover it as-is.

I've rebased this over the latest and actually added some tests for it - I don't know if you're still the right person to review @Johnlon but hopefully should be mergeable if the CI flow passes - take a look and let me know any concerns.