The Great Refactor #82
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #82 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 77.61% 87.24% +9.62%
==========================================
Files 20 18 -2
Lines 983 894 -89
==========================================
+ Hits 763 780 +17
+ Misses 207 98 -109
- Partials 13 16 +3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Edit: on second thought, let's use this opportunity to improve our code coverage. |
d3546c7 to
221b528
Compare
| @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ | |||
| // Copyright 2025 SeatGeek, Inc. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Idk how this works, but some files have 2024 and some have 2025. I guess you just keep the year it was last touched in?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh interesting, I'll take a closer look at that in a follow-up PR
| return func(writer http.ResponseWriter, request *http.Request) { | ||
| slog.Debug("handling incoming webhook", "handler", s.Key(), "path", request.URL.Path) | ||
| slog.Debug("handling incoming webhook", "parser", parserKey, "path", request.URL.Path) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe we should add these as attributes so they can be reused in the logger scoped to this func?
logger := slog.With(
slog.String("parser", parserKey),
slog.String("path", request.URL.Path),
)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good idea! I'll revisit this in a follow-up PR.
Refactoring away some of the complexity and rough edges. At a high level:
pkg/commonandpkg/handlerwithpkg/eventandpkg/validation