Skip to content

Comments

fix: correctly handle short driver names#70

Merged
murfffi merged 1 commit intomainfrom
fix/short
Dec 24, 2025
Merged

fix: correctly handle short driver names#70
murfffi merged 1 commit intomainfrom
fix/short

Conversation

@murfffi
Copy link
Member

@murfffi murfffi commented Dec 24, 2025

No description provided.

@gemini-code-assist
Copy link
Contributor

Summary of Changes

Hello @murfffi, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request refactors the driver registration mechanism to provide more control over the list of current drivers, which is particularly useful for testing and specific driver management scenarios. It also addresses a subtle bug where only the primary alias of a driver scheme was unregistered, ensuring that all aliases are now properly handled. These changes improve the robustness and maintainability of the driver management code.

Highlights

  • Refactoring Driver Registration: The RegisterNewDrivers function has been refactored to delegate its core logic to a new function, RegisterCurrentDrivers. This new function now accepts an explicit list of 'current' drivers, enhancing flexibility and testability.
  • Correct Alias Unregistration: The logic for unregistering driver schemes has been improved to correctly unregister all associated aliases of a scheme, rather than just the first alias, preventing potential issues with short driver names or multiple aliases.
  • New Test Case for Driver Registration: A new test function, TestRegisterCurrentDrivers, has been added to specifically verify the behavior of the refactored driver registration logic, including a test case for handling short driver names.
Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

This pull request correctly fixes a panic that occurred when handling database driver names with two or fewer characters. The fix, which involves iterating over aliases instead of assuming at least one exists, is correct and robust. The refactoring of RegisterNewDrivers into a new RegisterCurrentDrivers function is a great improvement for testability, as demonstrated by the new unit test. I've added one suggestion to further improve the test coverage for the new function.

Comment on lines +65 to 70
func TestRegisterCurrentDrivers(t *testing.T) {
t.Run("short name", func(t *testing.T) {
newDrivers := gen.RegisterCurrentDrivers(nil, []string{"d1"})
require.Equal(t, []string{"d1"}, newDrivers)
})
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

medium

The new test TestRegisterCurrentDrivers is great for covering the short driver name case that this PR fixes. To make the tests for the newly exported RegisterCurrentDrivers function more comprehensive, consider adding a few more sub-tests to cover other scenarios:

  • A driver that already exists in the existing slice (should result in no new drivers).
  • A driver with a long name that will generate an alias.
  • A mix of new, existing, short, and long driver names.

This would increase confidence in the refactored logic and prevent future regressions.

@murfffi murfffi merged commit 54dd40c into main Dec 24, 2025
5 checks passed
@murfffi murfffi deleted the fix/short branch December 24, 2025 13:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant