Add FromRequestParts derive macro

[kumarUjjawal]

adds the FromRequestParts derive macro implementation.

Closes #316

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 93.33333% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
cot-macros/src/from_request.rs	95.83%	1 Missing ⚠️
cot/src/admin.rs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Flag	Coverage Δ
rust	88.74% <93.33%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
cot-macros/src/lib.rs	96.61% <100.00%> (+0.31%)	⬆️
cot/src/request/extractors.rs	92.04% <ø> (ø)
cot-macros/src/from_request.rs	95.83% <95.83%> (ø)
cot/src/admin.rs	73.40% <0.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[seqre]

Thank you for your contribution! That's a great start, but I think it can be a bit better.

CI is failing due to a removed Clippy lint (match_on_vec_items) in cot/src/utils/graph.rs, which I haven’t modified. Should I remove the #[expect(clippy::match_on_vec_items)] line, or would you prefer to handle it separately?

Regarding your comment from the issue, I've checked the clippy workflow logs and I see no such lint error.

Also, please consider installing pre-commit hook, so your code is automatically formatted!

[m4tx]

Hey, thanks for the contribution! This looks fairly good; please have a look at my comments for some outstanding issues before we'll be ready to merge.

Also, I think it would be useful to use the macro on some existing code, for instance, here:

cot/cot/src/admin.rs

Lines 58 to 71 in f9d7c43

	#[derive(Debug)]
	struct BaseContext {
	urls: Urls,
	static_files: StaticFiles,
	}
	impl FromRequestParts for BaseContext {
	async fn from_request_parts(parts: &mut Parts) -> cot::Result<Self> {
	let urls = Urls::from_request_parts(parts).await?;
	let static_files = StaticFiles::from_request_parts(parts).await?;
	Ok(Self { urls, static_files })
	}
	}

to have an easy way to ensure it works correctly!

[kumarUjjawal]

Hey, thanks for the contribution! This looks fairly good; please have a look at my comments for some outstanding issues before we'll be ready to merge.

Also, I think it would be useful to use the macro on some existing code, for instance, here:

cot/cot/src/admin.rs

Lines 58 to 71 in f9d7c43

	#[derive(Debug)]
	struct BaseContext {
	urls: Urls,
	static_files: StaticFiles,
	}
	impl FromRequestParts for BaseContext {
	async fn from_request_parts(parts: &mut Parts) -> cot::Result<Self> {
	let urls = Urls::from_request_parts(parts).await?;
	let static_files = StaticFiles::from_request_parts(parts).await?;
	Ok(Self { urls, static_files })
	}
	}

to have an easy way to ensure it works correctly!

Hi, thank you for taking the time to review and provide valuable feedbacks. I will work on the issues as per your guidelines. This is my first time contributing on a project so please mind my messiness.

[kumarUjjawal]

@m4tx Hi, I am having some issue with module exports, can I push the code so you can take a look.

[m4tx]

@m4tx Hi, I am having some issue with module exports, can I push the code so you can take a look.

Sure!

[kumarUjjawal]

@m4tx Hi, did you get the time to look at the code for what I am doing wrong?

[kumarUjjawal]

@m4tx i made some changes and ran tests, all passed.

[m4tx]

@m4tx i made some changes and ran tests, all passed.

Please have a look at the pipelines, the tests are failing because you're trying to use axum via cot::axum, but we don't reexport it (for good reasons).

I'm not sure how you are running the tests, but running just tests (assuming you have the just runner installed) should run all the tests that do not require database or other external dependencies, and you should see the errors locally.

[kumarUjjawal]

@m4tx should pass now

[kumarUjjawal]

@m4tx i made some changes and ran tests, all passed.

Please have a look at the pipelines, the tests are failing because you're trying to use axum via cot::axum, but we don't reexport it (for good reasons).

I'm not sure how you are running the tests, but running just tests (assuming you have the just runner installed) should run all the tests that do not require database or other external dependencies, and you should see the errors locally.

I don't know why it was not picking up the errors then I ran cargo +nightly nextest run -p cot_macros --all-features -- derive_from_struct and was able to find the issues.

[kumarUjjawal]

@m4tx added more tests, should cover required patch coverage.

[kumarUjjawal]

@m4tx how can I test the coverage locally so I only push the changes when I am certain it will be above the required.

[seqre]

@m4tx how can I test the coverage locally so I only push the changes when I am certain it will be above the required.

@kumarUjjawal, first, generate the coverage data:

cargo llvm-cov --all-features --workspace --branch --doctests --codecov --output-path codecov.json -- --include-ignored

Then, you can use llvm-cov show or any other tool you like to view code coverage.

[kumarUjjawal]

@seqre thank you!

[m4tx]

@seqre @kumarUjjawal FYI there's a just command defined just (pun intended) to do that:

cot/justfile

Lines 41 to 44 in c7e295f

	coverage:
	# generate coverage report as HTML
	# requires cargo-llvm-cov installed and nightly toolchain
	cargo llvm-cov --all-features --workspace --branch --doctests --html --open

It also opens the coverage viewer in a web browser automatically.

[kumarUjjawal]

@m4tx All checks are passing now, let me know if there’s anything else you'd like me to do.

[seqre]

@kumarUjjawal, I think there are still some leftover review comments. Please review all and either resolve them if done or apply the suggested solutions.

[m4tx]

+1 on what @seqre says. This looks very good; please make sure all review comments are addressed and this will be ready to be merged.

[kumarUjjawal]

+1 on what @seqre says. This looks very good; please make sure all review comments are addressed and this will be ready to be merged.

Thank you! I've just one review changes left to test. I'm working on that.

[kumarUjjawal]

@m4tx @seqre I have made changes according to the review, please check!

[m4tx]

Looks very good, thanks a lot for the contribution and your patience in waiting for our reviews!

[kumarUjjawal]

@m4tx thank you for your help. I hope to contribute more to this project.