Refactor assertString: Faster, less nested and more consistent.

[EmersonRabelo]

@profnandaa,
I have a possible improvement for the assertString.
I am reducing the number of necessary validations and also a more assertive approach, in my point of view (if this approach doesn't make sense, I would appreciate feedback on it, if possible).
The performance has also improved, it wasn't something incredible, but it was considerable.

Unit tests:

[WikiRik]

I think the tests are failing because we currently do not throw an error for '' (an empty string).
Also; can you commit the unit tests as well?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.95%. Comparing base (b958bd7) to head (f8e62de).
Report is 82 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2372 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 99.95% 99.95% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2454 2445 -9 Branches 619 617 -2 ==========================================
- Hits 2453 2444 -9 
Partials 1 1 

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[EmersonRabelo]

Hi, @WikiRik!
I made a small change in the code and also committed the unit tests.
But it failed in one of the tests.

[WikiRik]

codecov/project will be fixed with #2341

[WikiRik]

This looks good to me

[rubiin]

LGTM

[pano9000]

when you pass literally null, it gives

Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'constructor')

because it is not caught by the first check.

Should we explicitly check for null there as well?

[EmersonRabelo]

Hello, @pano9000!
Do you have any further comments on this or is everything okay?
If necessary, I will make the alterations!

[pano9000]

should be ok now :-)
(however my approval is rather useless, as I am not a maintainer)

[EmersonRabelo]

@profnandaa,
I have a possible improvement for the assertString.
I am reducing the number of necessary validations and also a more assertive approach, in my point of view (if this approach doesn't make sense, I would appreciate feedback on it, if possible).
The performance has also improved, it wasn't something incredible, but it was considerable.

Unit tests:

[WikiRik]

I think the tests are failing because we currently do not throw an error for '' (an empty string).
Also; can you commit the unit tests as well?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.95%. Comparing base (b958bd7) to head (f8e62de).
Report is 82 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2372 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 99.95% 99.95% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2454 2445 -9 Branches 619 617 -2 ==========================================
- Hits 2453 2444 -9 
Partials 1 1 

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[EmersonRabelo]

Hi, @WikiRik!
I made a small change in the code and also committed the unit tests.
But it failed in one of the tests.

[WikiRik]

codecov/project will be fixed with #2341

[WikiRik]

This looks good to me

[rubiin]

LGTM

[pano9000]

when you pass literally null, it gives

Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'constructor')

because it is not caught by the first check.

Should we explicitly check for null there as well?

[EmersonRabelo]

Hello, @pano9000!
Do you have any further comments on this or is everything okay?
If necessary, I will make the alterations!

[pano9000]

should be ok now :-)
(however my approval is rather useless, as I am not a maintainer)

[EmersonRabelo]

@profnandaa,
I have a possible improvement for the assertString.
I am reducing the number of necessary validations and also a more assertive approach, in my point of view (if this approach doesn't make sense, I would appreciate feedback on it, if possible).
The performance has also improved, it wasn't something incredible, but it was considerable.

Unit tests:

[WikiRik]

I think the tests are failing because we currently do not throw an error for '' (an empty string).
Also; can you commit the unit tests as well?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.95%. Comparing base (b958bd7) to head (f8e62de).
Report is 82 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2372 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 99.95% 99.95% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2454 2445 -9 Branches 619 617 -2 ==========================================
- Hits 2453 2444 -9 
Partials 1 1 

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[EmersonRabelo]

Hi, @WikiRik!
I made a small change in the code and also committed the unit tests.
But it failed in one of the tests.

[WikiRik]

codecov/project will be fixed with #2341

[WikiRik]

This looks good to me

[rubiin]

LGTM

[pano9000]

when you pass literally null, it gives

Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'constructor')

because it is not caught by the first check.

Should we explicitly check for null there as well?

[EmersonRabelo]

Hello, @pano9000!
Do you have any further comments on this or is everything okay?
If necessary, I will make the alterations!

[pano9000]

should be ok now :-)
(however my approval is rather useless, as I am not a maintainer)

[EmersonRabelo]

@profnandaa,
I have a possible improvement for the assertString.
I am reducing the number of necessary validations and also a more assertive approach, in my point of view (if this approach doesn't make sense, I would appreciate feedback on it, if possible).
The performance has also improved, it wasn't something incredible, but it was considerable.

Unit tests:

[WikiRik]

I think the tests are failing because we currently do not throw an error for '' (an empty string).
Also; can you commit the unit tests as well?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.95%. Comparing base (b958bd7) to head (f8e62de).
Report is 82 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2372 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 99.95% 99.95% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2454 2445 -9 Branches 619 617 -2 ==========================================
- Hits 2453 2444 -9 
Partials 1 1 

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[EmersonRabelo]

Hi, @WikiRik!
I made a small change in the code and also committed the unit tests.
But it failed in one of the tests.

[WikiRik]

codecov/project will be fixed with #2341

[WikiRik]

This looks good to me

[rubiin]

LGTM

[pano9000]

when you pass literally null, it gives

Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'constructor')

because it is not caught by the first check.

Should we explicitly check for null there as well?

[EmersonRabelo]

Hello, @pano9000!
Do you have any further comments on this or is everything okay?
If necessary, I will make the alterations!

[pano9000]

should be ok now :-)
(however my approval is rather useless, as I am not a maintainer)

[EmersonRabelo]

@profnandaa,
I have a possible improvement for the assertString.
I am reducing the number of necessary validations and also a more assertive approach, in my point of view (if this approach doesn't make sense, I would appreciate feedback on it, if possible).
The performance has also improved, it wasn't something incredible, but it was considerable.

Unit tests:

[WikiRik]

I think the tests are failing because we currently do not throw an error for '' (an empty string).
Also; can you commit the unit tests as well?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.95%. Comparing base (b958bd7) to head (f8e62de).
Report is 82 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2372 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 99.95% 99.95% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2454 2445 -9 Branches 619 617 -2 ==========================================
- Hits 2453 2444 -9 
Partials 1 1 

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[EmersonRabelo]

Hi, @WikiRik!
I made a small change in the code and also committed the unit tests.
But it failed in one of the tests.

[WikiRik]

codecov/project will be fixed with #2341

[WikiRik]

This looks good to me

[rubiin]

LGTM

[pano9000]

when you pass literally null, it gives

Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'constructor')

because it is not caught by the first check.

Should we explicitly check for null there as well?

[EmersonRabelo]

Hello, @pano9000!
Do you have any further comments on this or is everything okay?
If necessary, I will make the alterations!

[pano9000]

should be ok now :-)
(however my approval is rather useless, as I am not a maintainer)

[EmersonRabelo]

@profnandaa,
I have a possible improvement for the assertString.
I am reducing the number of necessary validations and also a more assertive approach, in my point of view (if this approach doesn't make sense, I would appreciate feedback on it, if possible).
The performance has also improved, it wasn't something incredible, but it was considerable.

Unit tests:

[WikiRik]

I think the tests are failing because we currently do not throw an error for '' (an empty string).
Also; can you commit the unit tests as well?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.95%. Comparing base (b958bd7) to head (f8e62de).
Report is 82 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2372 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 99.95% 99.95% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2454 2445 -9 Branches 619 617 -2 ==========================================
- Hits 2453 2444 -9 
Partials 1 1 

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[EmersonRabelo]

Hi, @WikiRik!
I made a small change in the code and also committed the unit tests.
But it failed in one of the tests.

[WikiRik]

codecov/project will be fixed with #2341

[WikiRik]

This looks good to me

[rubiin]

LGTM

[pano9000]

when you pass literally null, it gives

Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'constructor')

because it is not caught by the first check.

Should we explicitly check for null there as well?

[EmersonRabelo]

Hello, @pano9000!
Do you have any further comments on this or is everything okay?
If necessary, I will make the alterations!

[pano9000]

should be ok now :-)
(however my approval is rather useless, as I am not a maintainer)

[EmersonRabelo]

@profnandaa,
I have a possible improvement for the assertString.
I am reducing the number of necessary validations and also a more assertive approach, in my point of view (if this approach doesn't make sense, I would appreciate feedback on it, if possible).
The performance has also improved, it wasn't something incredible, but it was considerable.

Unit tests:

[WikiRik]

I think the tests are failing because we currently do not throw an error for '' (an empty string).
Also; can you commit the unit tests as well?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.95%. Comparing base (b958bd7) to head (f8e62de).
Report is 82 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2372 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 99.95% 99.95% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2454 2445 -9 Branches 619 617 -2 ==========================================
- Hits 2453 2444 -9 
Partials 1 1 

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[EmersonRabelo]

Hi, @WikiRik!
I made a small change in the code and also committed the unit tests.
But it failed in one of the tests.

[WikiRik]

codecov/project will be fixed with #2341

[WikiRik]

This looks good to me

[rubiin]

LGTM

[pano9000]

when you pass literally null, it gives

Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'constructor')

because it is not caught by the first check.

Should we explicitly check for null there as well?

[EmersonRabelo]

Hello, @pano9000!
Do you have any further comments on this or is everything okay?
If necessary, I will make the alterations!

[pano9000]

should be ok now :-)
(however my approval is rather useless, as I am not a maintainer)

[EmersonRabelo]

@profnandaa,
I have a possible improvement for the assertString.
I am reducing the number of necessary validations and also a more assertive approach, in my point of view (if this approach doesn't make sense, I would appreciate feedback on it, if possible).
The performance has also improved, it wasn't something incredible, but it was considerable.

Unit tests:

[WikiRik]

I think the tests are failing because we currently do not throw an error for '' (an empty string).
Also; can you commit the unit tests as well?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.95%. Comparing base (b958bd7) to head (f8e62de).
Report is 82 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2372 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 99.95% 99.95% -0.01% 
==========================================
Files 107 107 Lines 2454 2445 -9 Branches 619 617 -2 ==========================================
- Hits 2453 2444 -9 
Partials 1 1 

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[EmersonRabelo]

Hi, @WikiRik!
I made a small change in the code and also committed the unit tests.
But it failed in one of the tests.

[WikiRik]

codecov/project will be fixed with #2341

[WikiRik]

This looks good to me

[rubiin]

LGTM

[pano9000]

when you pass literally null, it gives

Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'constructor')

because it is not caught by the first check.

Should we explicitly check for null there as well?

[EmersonRabelo]

Hello, @pano9000!
Do you have any further comments on this or is everything okay?
If necessary, I will make the alterations!

[pano9000]

should be ok now :-)
(however my approval is rather useless, as I am not a maintainer)