🧹 chore: Add table-driven integration tests

[gaby]

Summary

• This pull request refines the integration tests for middleware combinations within the Fiber framework. The primary goal is to ensure that response headers, which are critical for security and functionality, are consistently preserved across various middleware stacks even when the application's default error handler is invoked. This enhancement provides greater confidence in the stability and correctness of Fiber's middleware interactions, especially under error conditions.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @gaby, 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 refines the integration tests for middleware combinations within the Fiber framework. The primary goal is to ensure that response headers, which are critical for security and functionality, are consistently preserved across various middleware stacks even when the application's default error handler is invoked. This enhancement provides greater confidence in the stability and correctness of Fiber's middleware interactions, especially under error conditions.

Highlights

• Enhanced Middleware Combination Integration Tests: A new comprehensive test suite has been added to verify that response headers from various middleware combinations are correctly preserved even when Fiber's default error handler is triggered. This significantly improves the robustness of error handling in complex middleware stacks.
• Added recover and helmet Panic Coverage: A specific test case for the recover and helmet middleware combination has been included to ensure that security headers set by helmet remain intact even during panic recovery scenarios.
• Improved Test Suite Structure and Readability: The new integration test suite introduces a middlewareCombinationTestCase struct with helper methods (statusOrDefault, handlerOrDefault) and documented its layout, making the extensive test table easier to read, understand, and extend.
• Optimized Test Execution: Subtests within the new integration suite now run in parallel, and assertions are marked as helpers (t.Helper()) for clearer and more efficient test output.

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. ↩

[coderabbitai]

Note

Other AI code review bot(s) detected

CodeRabbit has detected other AI code review bot(s) in this pull request and will avoid duplicating their findings in the review comments. This may lead to a less comprehensive review.

Walkthrough

Adds comprehensive integration tests for middleware combinations verifying that security headers survive the default error handler. Introduces a new test case type with orchestrated middleware stacks (CORS, helmet, requestid, cache, session, csrf, basicauth, keyauth, compress, recover, envvar) and validates header preservation across error scenarios.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Integration test infrastructure app_integration_test.go	Introduces middlewareCombinationTestCase struct and helper methods (statusOrDefault(), handlerOrDefault()) for organizing middleware-combination tests. Adds integrationEncryptCookieKey shared variable for encryptcookie middleware. Expands imports to cover additional Fiber middleware.
Middleware combination integration tests app_integration_test.go	Adds Test_Integration_App_ServerErrorHandler_MiddlewareCombinationHeaders() function that orchestrates multiple middleware stacks and validates header integrity through error paths, ensuring security headers and metadata are preserved across various middleware interactions.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

• New test infrastructure: Review the middlewareCombinationTestCase struct design and helper methods for clarity and reusability
• Test matrix comprehensiveness: Verify that all middleware combinations adequately exercise the error handler paths and validate expected header preservation
• Test case setup and assertions: Ensure per-case setup, request configuration, and assertion hooks are correct and logically sound

Possibly related PRs

• 🐛 bug: Execute middleware routes when handling errors #3846: Implements middleware execution during server error handling, directly supporting the header preservation scenarios tested in this PR
• 🧹 chore: Improve Helmet middleware tests coverage #3523: Adds Helmet middleware header tests (HSTS behavior), complementary to this PR's broader middleware-combination header validation

Suggested reviewers

• sixcolors
• efectn
• ReneWerner87

Poem

🐰 A test case hops through middleware maze,
Security headers preserved through error's haze,
CORS and Helmet dance in perfect sync,
Error handlers won't lose a header's link—
Robust stacks guard the rabbit's way! 🛡️✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (2 warnings)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	You can run @coderabbitai generate docstrings to improve docstring coverage.
Description check	⚠️ Warning	The description is incomplete. It lacks required sections like issue reference, detailed changes list, type of change selection, and most checklist items from the template.	Complete the PR description by adding: the issue being fixed, the full 'Changes introduced' section with checkboxes, selection of change type, and verification of checklist items.

✅ Passed checks (1 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'chore: Add table-driven integration tests' directly relates to the main change—adding a comprehensive test matrix for middleware combinations with table-driven test patterns.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch add-table-driven-tests-for-fiber-middleware

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.66%. Comparing base (5d91977) to head (fe6302b).
⚠️ Report is 35 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3894      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.64%   91.66%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         115      115              
  Lines        9848     9981     +133     
==========================================
+ Hits         9025     9149     +124     
- Misses        523      532       +9     
  Partials      300      300              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	91.66% <ø> (+0.02%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR enhances the middleware combination integration test suite by adding a helmet+recover panic coverage test case and introducing helper methods for configurable default handlers. The changes improve test maintainability by structuring test cases with named types, marking assertions as test helpers, running subtests in parallel, and adding comprehensive documentation.

Key Changes:

• Added middlewareCombinationTestCase struct with helper methods statusOrDefault() and handlerOrDefault() for cleaner test configuration
• Introduced 18 comprehensive middleware combination test cases covering CORS, helmet, session, CSRF, authentication, compression, and recovery scenarios
• Enabled parallel test execution for improved performance

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request significantly improves the integration tests for middleware combinations by introducing a comprehensive, table-driven test suite. The new tests are well-structured, parallelized, and cover a wide range of middleware interactions, including panic recovery. The code is clear and well-documented. I have one suggestion to simplify a small part of the test code for better readability and maintainability.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".