-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 85
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.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. Weβll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: [#491] Fix the errors thrown by Lint/nilaway CI #642
Conversation
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are limited to specific labels. π·οΈ Labels to auto review (1)
Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the 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? πͺ§ 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 using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #642 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 71.00% 70.36% -0.64%
==========================================
Files 189 189
Lines 11804 11926 +122
==========================================
+ Hits 8381 8392 +11
- Misses 2854 2956 +102
- Partials 569 578 +9 β View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
CI failed, pls check. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
β οΈ Performance Alert β οΈ
Possible performance regression was detected for benchmark.
Benchmark result of this commit is worse than the previous benchmark result exceeding threshold 1.50
.
Benchmark suite | Current: 58b5a40 | Previous: cb355db | Ratio |
---|---|---|---|
Benchmark_Fatal |
2e-7 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op |
1e-7 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op |
2 |
Benchmark_Fatal - ns/op |
2e-7 ns/op |
1e-7 ns/op |
2 |
This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.
Sorry @devhaozi , itβs still not finished, so Iβll make it a draft for now. My local machine was hanging when I used NilAway, so I was pushing changes after making some adjustments to run |
CI failed |
This PR is ready for review, right? it's still draft. |
It's completed from my side |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great PR, we can make a deeper optimization.
crypt/service_provider.go
Outdated
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ type ServiceProvider struct { | |||
|
|||
func (crypt *ServiceProvider) Register(app foundation.Application) { | |||
app.Singleton(Binding, func(app foundation.Application) (any, error) { | |||
return NewAES(app.MakeConfig(), app.GetJson()), nil | |||
return NewAES(app.MakeConfig(), app.GetJson()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should judge nil here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think we should do that here it is better to return error here it will be judged when calling MakeAES
anyways.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great PR π
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great
π Description
Closes goravel/goravel#491
@coderabbitai summary
β Checks