schema.go (3)

Line range hint 572-578: Consider improving error message and handling

The error message for unsupported nullable fields is informative, but it could be enhanced to provide more context and guidance.

Consider the following improvements:

1. Use fmt.Errorf with %w to wrap the error, allowing for better error handling up the call stack.
2. Provide more context in the error message, such as suggesting alternatives or explaining why it's not supported.

Here's an example of how you could refactor this:

-panic(fmt.Errorf("nullable is not supported for field '%s' which is type '%s'", f.Name, fs.Ref))
+return nil, fmt.Errorf("nullable is not supported for field '%s' of type '%s': %w", f.Name, fs.Ref, ErrUnsupportedNullableObject)

This change assumes you've defined an ErrUnsupportedNullableObject error type elsewhere in your package. You'd also need to update the function signature to return (*Schema, error) instead of just *Schema.

Consider creating a custom error type for schema-related errors. This would allow for more structured error handling throughout the application. For example:

type SchemaError struct {
    Field string
    Type  string
    Msg   string
}

func (e *SchemaError) Error() string {
    return fmt.Sprintf("schema error for field '%s' of type '%s': %s", e.Field, e.Type, e.Msg)
}

This would allow for more detailed error reporting and easier error handling in the calling code.

---

Line range hint 479-583: Consider refactoring SchemaFromField for improved maintainability

The SchemaFromField function is quite long and handles many different schema properties. This can make it difficult to maintain and extend in the future.

Consider breaking down this function into smaller, more focused functions. Here are some suggestions:

1. Create separate functions for handling different types of tags (e.g., handleStringTags, handleNumericTags, etc.).
2. Group related schema property settings together.
3. Use a builder pattern to construct the schema, which could make the code more readable and easier to extend.

Here's a sketch of how this refactoring could look:

func SchemaFromField(registry Registry, f reflect.StructField, hint string) *Schema {
    fs := registry.Schema(f.Type, true, hint)
    if fs == nil {
        return fs
    }
    
    schemaBuilder := NewSchemaBuilder(fs)
    
    schemaBuilder.
        HandleStringTags(f).
        HandleNumericTags(f).
        HandleArrayTags(f).
        HandleObjectTags(f)
    
    handleNullableField(registry, f, schemaBuilder)
    
    return schemaBuilder.Build()
}

func handleNullableField(registry Registry, f reflect.StructField, builder *SchemaBuilder) {
    if builder.Schema.Nullable && isNullableObjectSchema(registry, builder.Schema) {
        // Handle nullable object schema...
    }
}

This approach would make the function easier to read, maintain, and extend in the future. It would also make it easier to add new schema properties or tag handling without cluttering the main function.

Consider introducing a SchemaBuilder struct that encapsulates the logic for building a schema. This could provide a more fluent interface for schema construction and make it easier to add new schema properties in the future.

---

Line range hint 1-583: Summary of review for schema.go

The changes in this file successfully address the issue described in the PR objectives, improving the handling of nullable object schemas. However, there are several opportunities for further improvement:

1. The main change could be refactored into a separate function for better readability and reusability.
2. Error handling for unsupported nullable fields could be improved to provide more context and better integration with error handling patterns.
3. The SchemaFromField function is quite long and complex, and could benefit from being broken down into smaller, more focused functions.
4. Consider introducing a SchemaBuilder pattern to improve the overall structure and extensibility of the schema generation code.

These suggestions aim to improve the maintainability, readability, and robustness of the code. While the current changes are functional and address the immediate issue, implementing these refactoring suggestions could lead to a more sustainable codebase in the long term.

Consider creating a follow-up task to implement the suggested refactorings, as they go beyond the scope of the current PR but could significantly improve the codebase.

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL