Verify CAP/DAP requests automatically

[st0012]

Since all protocol responses should be verified except for a few exceptions (e.g. DAP's stepBack), the verification should be performed automatically. This can prevent situations like #559 (comment) and also make the API easier to use (getting response from the same method call).

There are 2 exceptions though. Both of them are DAP requests:

• stepBack doesn't return response "yet".
• stackTrace's response doesn't match the schema. I think this is something to be fixed in another PR.

This refactor can actually centralize those exceptions and make them easier to manage. And sooner or later they should go anyway.

[ono-max]

I like this idea 👍

[ono-max]

stackTrace's response doesn't match the schema.

Could you be more specific?

[st0012]

If you verify the stackTrace request, you'll get

 -------------------
| Failure Message |
-------------------
result:
{
"type": "response",
"command": "stackTrace",
"request_seq": 10,
"success": true,
"message": "Success",
"body": {
"stackFrames": [
{
"name": "Foo::Bar.a",
"line": 5,
"column": 1,
"source": {
"name": "debug-20220330-24493-xudwvq.rb",
"path": "/private/var/folders/yg/hnbymwxd5pn7v94_clc59y6r0000gn/T/debug-20220330-24493-xudwvq.rb",
"sourceReference": null
},
"id": 4
},
{
"name": "<module:Foo>",
"line": 7,
"column": 1,
"source": {
"name": "debug-20220330-24493-xudwvq.rb",
"path": "/private/var/folders/yg/hnbymwxd5pn7v94_clc59y6r0000gn/T/debug-20220330-24493-xudwvq.rb",
"sourceReference": null
},
"id": 5
},
{
"name": "<main>",
"line": 1,
"column": 1,
"source": {
"name": "debug-20220330-24493-xudwvq.rb",
"path": "/private/var/folders/yg/hnbymwxd5pn7v94_clc59y6r0000gn/T/debug-20220330-24493-xudwvq.rb",
"sourceReference": null
},
"id": 6
}
]
},
"seq": 12
}
The property '#/body/stackFrames/0/source/sourceReference' of type null did not match the following type: integer

Related code

Even if the fix itself may be simple, fixing this will also affect all the recorded raw tests. So I think it's better to do it in another PR.

[st0012]

@ono-max btw, I proposed a change in #605

[ono-max]

Nice refactoring.

[ono-max]

Maybe, I forgot to add cleanup_reader method. Could you add it here, too?

[st0012]

Updated 👍

[st0012]

@ono-max can you give this another look? thx

[ono-max]

Great! LGTM