Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 86.58537% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.05%. Comparing base (bb7843c) to head (d63403f).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3134      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    77.97%   78.05%   +0.07%     
===========================================
  Files          354      354              
  Lines        34660    34669       +9     
===========================================
+ Hits         27025    27058      +33     
+ Misses        6006     5988      -18     
+ Partials      1629     1623       -6     

todo: This appears to be entirely untested, given the lack of any changes made to test files, and no note of any manual testing in the PR description. I prefer that you add tests, but if you really think manual testing is okay in the short term, please note why.

Happy to add tests if you have any specific code blocks that I should test, here are all the changes that have been done:

• Implicit casts that would panic .() moved to mustXYZ functions -> Won't change or need tests as it's the same behavior.
• HTTP handler functions changed to follow the same practice as all other existing handlers to panic instead of returning 400.
• Added extra linter (testing not applicable)
• Some instances of double casts just split into multiple must/``try` checks.

HTTP handler functions changed to follow the same practice as all other existing handlers to panic instead of returning 400.

It was this I was mostly after - might not be worth the hassle of writing tests for though as I guess it is mostly just the http status code that changed, and that's not something the integration test framework can handle atm I think. Have you manually tested this?

HTTP handler functions changed to follow the same practice as all other existing handlers to panic instead of returning 400.

It was this I was mostly after - might not be worth the hassle of writing tests for though as I guess it is mostly just the http status code that changed, and that's not something the integration test framework can handle atm I think. Have you manually tested this?

Manually some yes, but not all. I am a bit unsure how to test certain situations.