Skip to content
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions script.go
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -291,6 +291,9 @@ func ListFiles(path string) *Pipe {
// Slice creates a pipe containing each element of the supplied slice of
// strings, one per line.
func Slice(s []string) *Pipe {
if len(s) <= 0 {
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems unlikely that len(s) could be less than zero, doesn't it?

Clearly the special case here is where the length equals zero, but it seems a shame to duplicate virtually the whole function for this case. Actually, the difference in behaviour is whether or not we add a final newline. It seems slightly neater to me to isolate just that in the special-case branch.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And if s has zero elements, there's no need to call strings.Join in any case: there's nothing to join.

Instead, what about:

if len(s) == 0 {
	return NewPipe()
}
return Echo(strings.Join(s, "\n") + "\n")

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's a very good point ! @bitfield thanks!

return Echo(strings.Join(s, ""))
}
return Echo(strings.Join(s, "\n") + "\n")
}

Expand Down
15 changes: 15 additions & 0 deletions script_test.go
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1120,6 +1120,21 @@ func TestSliceProducesElementsOfSpecifiedSliceOnePerLine(t *testing.T) {
}
}

func TestSliceProducesNoElementsWhenProvidedWithAnEmptyList(t *testing.T) {
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually, since the result of Slice is a Pipe, maybe we should say something like:

func TestSliceGivenEmptySliceProducesEmptyPipe

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And we could probably use an extra test here for the non-empty slice behaviour, couldn't we? (The fact that we don't have one is entirely on me, but this is a good chance to add it.)

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Doesn't this test cover non-empty slice behaviour ?

func TestSliceProducesElementsOfSpecifiedSliceOnePerLine(t *testing.T) {
	t.Parallel()
	want := "1\n2\n3\n"
	got, err := script.Slice([]string{"1", "2", "3"}).String()
	if err != nil {
		t.Fatal(err)
	}
	if !cmp.Equal(want, got) {
		t.Error(cmp.Diff(want, got))
	}
}

t.Parallel()

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is great, but it's house style with this project to use no blank lines within functions. To my mind, they just make the function longer without providing any benefit.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a thing I have built into muscle memory from my typescript work.. I noticed some Go devs prefer not to have a bunch of blank lines

want := ""
got, err := script.Slice([]string{}).String()

if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}

if !cmp.Equal(want, got) {
t.Error(cmp.Diff(want, got))
}
}

func TestStdinReadsFromProgramStandardInput(t *testing.T) {
t.Parallel()
// dummy test to prove coverage
Expand Down