-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
🐛 bug: Fix square bracket notation in Multipart FormData #3235
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request enhance the multipart form data handling in the Changes
Assessment against linked issues
Possibly related issues
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3235 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 84.40% 84.32% -0.08%
==========================================
Files 116 116
Lines 11485 11499 +14
==========================================
+ Hits 9694 9697 +3
- Misses 1374 1382 +8
- Partials 417 420 +3
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 5
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
bind_test.go
(4 hunks)binder/form.go
(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
binder/form.go
[warning] 60-67: binder/form.go#L60-L67
Added lines #L60 - L67 were not covered by tests
[warning] 70-77: binder/form.go#L70-L77
Added lines #L70 - L77 were not covered by tests
🪛 golangci-lint (1.62.2)
bind_test.go
998-998: Error return value of writer.WriteField
is not checked
(errcheck)
999-999: Error return value of writer.WriteField
is not checked
(errcheck)
1000-1000: Error return value of writer.Close
is not checked
(errcheck)
1019-1019: Error return value of writer.WriteField
is not checked
(errcheck)
1020-1020: Error return value of writer.WriteField
is not checked
(errcheck)
1021-1021: Error return value of writer.Close
is not checked
(errcheck)
[warning] 1238-1238: unhandled-error: Unhandled error in call to function mime/multipart.Writer.WriteField
(revive)
1238-1238: Error return value of writer.WriteField
is not checked
(errcheck)
[warning] 1240-1240: unhandled-error: Unhandled error in call to function mime/multipart.Writer.Close
(revive)
1240-1240: Error return value of writer.Close
is not checked
(errcheck)
[warning] 1278-1278: unhandled-error: Unhandled error in call to function mime/multipart.Writer.WriteField
(revive)
1278-1278: Error return value of writer.WriteField
is not checked
(errcheck)
[warning] 1279-1279: unhandled-error: Unhandled error in call to function mime/multipart.Writer.WriteField
(revive)
1279-1279: Error return value of writer.WriteField
is not checked
(errcheck)
[warning] 1280-1280: unhandled-error: Unhandled error in call to function mime/multipart.Writer.WriteField
(revive)
[warning] 1281-1281: unhandled-error: Unhandled error in call to function mime/multipart.Writer.WriteField
(revive)
[warning] 1282-1282: unhandled-error: Unhandled error in call to function mime/multipart.Writer.WriteField
(revive)
[warning] 1284-1284: unhandled-error: Unhandled error in call to function mime/multipart.Writer.Close
(revive)
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
bind_test.go
[failure] 998-998:
Error return value of writer.WriteField
is not checked (errcheck)
[failure] 999-999:
Error return value of writer.WriteField
is not checked (errcheck)
[failure] 1000-1000:
Error return value of writer.Close
is not checked (errcheck)
[failure] 1019-1019:
Error return value of writer.WriteField
is not checked (errcheck)
[failure] 1020-1020:
Error return value of writer.WriteField
is not checked (errcheck)
[failure] 1021-1021:
Error return value of writer.Close
is not checked (errcheck)
[failure] 1238-1238:
unhandled-error: Unhandled error in call to function mime/multipart.Writer.WriteField (revive)
[failure] 1238-1238:
Error return value of writer.WriteField
is not checked (errcheck)
[failure] 1240-1240:
unhandled-error: Unhandled error in call to function mime/multipart.Writer.Close (revive)
[failure] 1240-1240:
Error return value of writer.Close
is not checked (errcheck)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
bind_test.go (2)
992-1032
: LGTM! Consider adding edge cases.The new test cases effectively validate both dot notation and square bracket syntax for multipart form data binding. The tests are well-structured and consistent with the existing test patterns.
Consider adding test cases for:
- Empty arrays
- Invalid indices
- Mixed notation (e.g.,
data[0].name
anddata.1[name]
)- Special characters in field names
Line range hint
992-1302
: Overall implementation looks solidThe implementation successfully adds support for square bracket notation in multipart binding while maintaining compatibility with dot notation. The test coverage is good, though it could be expanded to cover more edge cases. The benchmarks provide performance validation but need the variable fixes mentioned above.
Since this feature provides two different notations for the same functionality, consider:
- Documenting the preferred notation in comments
- Adding examples in the test file showing when to use each notation
- Ensuring consistent performance between both notations through benchmarks
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: unit (1.23.x, macos-13)
[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t
[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t
[failure] 1277-1277:
undefined: t
[failure] 1278-1278:
undefined: t
[failure] 1279-1279:
undefined: t
[failure] 1280-1280:
undefined: t
[failure] 1281-1281:
undefined: t
[failure] 1282-1282:
undefined: t
[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t
[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t🪛 GitHub Check: unit (1.23.x, macos-latest)
[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t
[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t
[failure] 1277-1277:
undefined: t
[failure] 1278-1278:
undefined: t
[failure] 1279-1279:
undefined: t
[failure] 1280-1280:
undefined: t
[failure] 1281-1281:
undefined: t
[failure] 1282-1282:
undefined: t🪛 GitHub Check: unit (1.23.x, ubuntu-latest)
[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t
[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t
[failure] 1277-1277:
undefined: t
[failure] 1278-1278:
undefined: t
[failure] 1279-1279:
undefined: t
[failure] 1280-1280:
undefined: t
[failure] 1281-1281:
undefined: t
[failure] 1282-1282:
undefined: t
[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t
[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t🪛 GitHub Check: lint
[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t
[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t
[failure] 1277-1277:
undefined: t
[failure] 1278-1278:
undefined: t
[failure] 1279-1279:
undefined: t
[failure] 1280-1280:
undefined: t
[failure] 1281-1281:
undefined: t
[failure] 1282-1282:
undefined: t (typecheck)
[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t
[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
bind_test.go
(4 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: unit (1.23.x, macos-13)
bind_test.go
[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t
[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t
[failure] 1277-1277:
undefined: t
[failure] 1278-1278:
undefined: t
[failure] 1279-1279:
undefined: t
[failure] 1280-1280:
undefined: t
[failure] 1281-1281:
undefined: t
[failure] 1282-1282:
undefined: t
[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t
[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t
🪛 GitHub Check: unit (1.23.x, macos-latest)
bind_test.go
[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t
[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t
[failure] 1277-1277:
undefined: t
[failure] 1278-1278:
undefined: t
[failure] 1279-1279:
undefined: t
[failure] 1280-1280:
undefined: t
[failure] 1281-1281:
undefined: t
[failure] 1282-1282:
undefined: t
🪛 GitHub Check: unit (1.23.x, ubuntu-latest)
bind_test.go
[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t
[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t
[failure] 1277-1277:
undefined: t
[failure] 1278-1278:
undefined: t
[failure] 1279-1279:
undefined: t
[failure] 1280-1280:
undefined: t
[failure] 1281-1281:
undefined: t
[failure] 1282-1282:
undefined: t
[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t
[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t
🪛 GitHub Check: lint
bind_test.go
[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t
[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t
[failure] 1277-1277:
undefined: t
[failure] 1278-1278:
undefined: t
[failure] 1279-1279:
undefined: t
[failure] 1280-1280:
undefined: t
[failure] 1281-1281:
undefined: t
[failure] 1282-1282:
undefined: t (typecheck)
[failure] 1238-1238:
undefined: t
[failure] 1239-1239:
undefined: t
@efectn Analysis by Key Issues Identified:
Summary of Primary Concerns:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
binder/form.go (1)
71-77
: Consider adding debug logging for complex transformationsWhile the comma-splitting logic is correct, adding debug logging would help troubleshoot issues in production.
for _, v := range values { + // Debug: log.Debug().Str("key", key).Str("value", v).Msg("Processing multipart form value") if strings.Contains(v, ",") && equalFieldType(out, reflect.Slice, key) { temp[key] = strings.Split(v, ",") } else { temp[key] = append(temp[key], v) } }
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 72-75: binder/form.go#L72-L75
Added lines #L72 - L75 were not covered by tests
[warning] 77-77: binder/form.go#L77
Added line #L77 was not covered by tests
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
bind_test.go
(5 hunks)binder/form.go
(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
binder/form.go
[warning] 66-67: binder/form.go#L66-L67
Added lines #L66 - L67 were not covered by tests
[warning] 72-75: binder/form.go#L72-L75
Added lines #L72 - L75 were not covered by tests
[warning] 77-77: binder/form.go#L77
Added line #L77 was not covered by tests
🔇 Additional comments (7)
binder/form.go (2)
60-80
: LGTM! The implementation addresses key issues.
The changes effectively resolve several issues identified in the PR comments:
- Using a temporary map prevents modification during iteration
- Proper error handling for square bracket notation
- Consistent key usage after transformation
- Improved comma-splitting logic
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 66-67: binder/form.go#L66-L67
Added lines #L66 - L67 were not covered by tests
[warning] 72-75: binder/form.go#L72-L75
Added lines #L72 - L75 were not covered by tests
[warning] 77-77: binder/form.go#L77
Added line #L77 was not covered by tests
62-69
: Verify error handling in parseParamSquareBrackets
The square bracket parsing looks good, but let's verify the robustness of parseParamSquareBrackets
.
✅ Verification successful
Error handling in parseParamSquareBrackets is robust and well-tested
After reviewing the implementation and tests, the function handles all edge cases appropriately:
- Properly converts bracket notation to dot notation (e.g.,
foo[bar[baz]]
→foo.bar.baz
) - Handles empty inputs and empty brackets (
[]
,""
) - Detects and reports unmatched brackets with clear error message
- Uses bytebufferpool for efficient string building
- Includes proper error handling for write operations
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for parseParamSquareBrackets implementation and its tests
ast-grep --pattern 'func parseParamSquareBrackets($$$) {
$$$
}'
# Search for test cases
rg -A 5 'Test.*parseParamSquareBrackets'
Length of output: 110
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's try a different approach to find the implementation and tests
# First, let's find the file containing the function
rg -l "parseParamSquareBrackets"
# Then let's look at the implementation and surrounding context
rg -B 5 -A 10 "func parseParamSquareBrackets"
# Also search for test files
fd -e go -e _test.go
Length of output: 5855
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's look at the complete implementation and tests
rg -A 20 'func parseParamSquareBrackets' binder/mapping.go
# Get the test cases
rg -A 20 'parseParamSquareBrackets' binder/mapping_test.go
Length of output: 850
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's get more context from the test file to see the test cases
rg -B 10 -A 5 'parseParamSquareBrackets' binder/mapping_test.go
# And let's get the complete implementation as the previous command didn't show the full function
rg -B 2 -A 30 'func parseParamSquareBrackets' binder/mapping.go
Length of output: 1134
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's get the full test cases to see all the scenarios being tested
rg -B 20 -A 5 'result, err := parseParamSquareBrackets' binder/mapping_test.go
Length of output: 537
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's get the complete test cases from the beginning
rg -B 30 'result, err := parseParamSquareBrackets' binder/mapping_test.go
Length of output: 580
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 66-67: binder/form.go#L66-L67
Added lines #L66 - L67 were not covered by tests
bind_test.go (5)
882-883
: LGTM! Well-structured struct definition.
The Demo struct properly defines tags for all supported binding types.
993-1012
: LGTM! Comprehensive test for dot notation.
The test properly validates multipart form data binding using dot notation.
1014-1033
: LGTM! Good test coverage for square bracket notation.
The test ensures proper handling of square bracket notation in multipart form data.
Line range hint 1270-1297
: Handle errors in nested benchmark setup
Similar to the previous benchmark, proper error handling is needed for writer operations.
buf := &bytes.Buffer{}
writer := multipart.NewWriter(buf)
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("name", "john"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons.0.name", "john"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons[0][age]", "10"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons[1][name]", "doe"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons.1.age", "20"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.Close())
+if err := writer.WriteField("name", "john"); err != nil {
+ b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons.0.name", "john"); err != nil {
+ b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons[0][age]", "10"); err != nil {
+ b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons[1][name]", "doe"); err != nil {
+ b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons.1.age", "20"); err != nil {
+ b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.Close(); err != nil {
+ b.Fatal(err)
+}
1231-1251
:
Handle errors in benchmark setup
The benchmark setup should handle errors from writer operations.
buf := &bytes.Buffer{}
writer := multipart.NewWriter(buf)
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("name", "john"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.Close())
+if err := writer.WriteField("name", "john"); err != nil {
+ b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.Close(); err != nil {
+ b.Fatal(err)
+}
Likely invalid or redundant comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 0
♻️ Duplicate comments (3)
bind_test.go (3)
1001-1020
:⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling for multipart operations
The test case should handle potential errors from multipart operations.
Apply this diff:
buf := &bytes.Buffer{} writer := multipart.NewWriter(buf) -require.NoError(t, writer.WriteField("data.0.name", "john")) -require.NoError(t, writer.WriteField("data.1.name", "doe")) -require.NoError(t, writer.Close()) +if err := writer.WriteField("data.0.name", "john"); err != nil { + t.Fatal(err) +} +if err := writer.WriteField("data.1.name", "doe"); err != nil { + t.Fatal(err) +} +if err := writer.Close(); err != nil { + t.Fatal(err) +}
1022-1041
:⚠️ Potential issueAdd error handling for square bracket notation test
Similar to the dot notation test, this test case should handle potential errors.
Apply this diff:
buf := &bytes.Buffer{} writer := multipart.NewWriter(buf) -require.NoError(t, writer.WriteField("data[0][name]", "john")) -require.NoError(t, writer.WriteField("data[1][name]", "doe")) -require.NoError(t, writer.Close()) +if err := writer.WriteField("data[0][name]", "john"); err != nil { + t.Fatal(err) +} +if err := writer.WriteField("data[1][name]", "doe"); err != nil { + t.Fatal(err) +} +if err := writer.Close(); err != nil { + t.Fatal(err) +}
1239-1259
:⚠️ Potential issueFix benchmark test variable usage
The benchmark is using
t
instead ofb
for assertions.Apply this diff:
buf := &bytes.Buffer{} writer := multipart.NewWriter(buf) -require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("name", "john")) -require.NoError(b, writer.Close()) +if err := writer.WriteField("name", "john"); err != nil { + b.Fatal(err) +} +if err := writer.Close(); err != nil { + b.Fatal(err) +}
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
binder/form.go (1)
80-87
: Consider optimizing value handlingThe nested loop for handling values could be optimized by pre-allocating the slice capacity when splitting comma-separated values.
Apply this optimization:
for _, v := range values { if strings.Contains(v, ",") && equalFieldType(out, reflect.Slice, key) { - temp[key] = strings.Split(v, ",") + parts := strings.Split(v, ",") + temp[key] = make([]string, len(parts)) + copy(temp[key], parts) } else { temp[key] = append(temp[key], v) } }🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 82-82: binder/form.go#L82
Added line #L82 was not covered by tests
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
bind_test.go
(5 hunks)binder/form.go
(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
binder/form.go
[warning] 72-75: binder/form.go#L72-L75
Added lines #L72 - L75 were not covered by tests
[warning] 77-77: binder/form.go#L77
Added line #L77 was not covered by tests
[warning] 82-82: binder/form.go#L82
Added line #L82 was not covered by tests
🔇 Additional comments (4)
binder/form.go (2)
69-78
: LGTM: Safe map iteration with temporary storage
The introduction of a temporary map and proper error handling for square bracket notation parsing is a good approach. This addresses the issue of modifying maps during iteration that was mentioned in the PR comments.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 72-75: binder/form.go#L72-L75
Added lines #L72 - L75 were not covered by tests
[warning] 77-77: binder/form.go#L77
Added line #L77 was not covered by tests
89-89
: LGTM: Clean return statement
The final return statement correctly uses the temporary map instead of the original data.Value map.
bind_test.go (2)
890-891
: LGTM: Well-structured struct definition
The Demo struct is properly tagged for multiple serialization formats.
Line range hint 1261-1305
: Fix nested benchmark test variable usage
Similar to the previous benchmark, this test is using incorrect variable for assertions.
Apply this diff:
buf := &bytes.Buffer{}
writer := multipart.NewWriter(buf)
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("name", "john"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons.0.name", "john"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons[0][age]", "10"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons[1][name]", "doe"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.WriteField("persons.1.age", "20"))
-require.NoError(b, writer.Close())
+if err := writer.WriteField("name", "john"); err != nil {
+ b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons.0.name", "john"); err != nil {
+ b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons[0][age]", "10"); err != nil {
+ b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons[1][name]", "doe"); err != nil {
+ b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.WriteField("persons.1.age", "20"); err != nil {
+ b.Fatal(err)
+}
+if err := writer.Close(); err != nil {
+ b.Fatal(err)
+}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
⚠️ Performance Alert ⚠️
Possible performance regression was detected for benchmark.
Benchmark result of this commit is worse than the previous benchmark result exceeding threshold 1.50
.
Benchmark suite | Current: ddeba87 | Previous: 57744eb | Ratio |
---|---|---|---|
Benchmark_Compress_Levels/Brotli_LevelBestCompression - B/op |
6 B/op |
0 B/op |
+∞ |
This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
binder/form_test.go (1)
137-142
: Verifying all integer and string fields together ensures consistent binding.
These assertions comprehensively validateNames
andPosts
. The approach checks that multiple values are properly stored, including "eric," and that a fixed number of posts is parsed correctly.For formatting, consider addressing the gofumpt warning on line 142 for consistency with Go style guidelines.
🧰 Tools
🪛 golangci-lint (1.62.2)
142-142: File is not
gofumpt
-ed with-extra
(gofumpt)
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
binder/form_test.go
(3 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 golangci-lint (1.62.2)
binder/form_test.go
142-142: File is not gofumpt
-ed with -extra
(gofumpt)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
binder/form_test.go (4)
96-98
: New Post
struct introduction looks concise and effective.
The addition of this struct is aligned with the new binding logic for multipart keys. The Title
field is well-defined with a form
tag.
103-103
: Posts []Post
field addition aligns with square bracket notation changes.
This field logically complements the new Post
struct to parse an array of posts from multipart form data. To be extra robust, consider testing an empty or missing posts
key to confirm the default behavior of this field.
114-114
: Multiple values for names
thoroughly tests splitting logic.
The inclusion of "john,eric"
ensures that the functionality for splitting comma-delimited strings is properly exercised before adding "doe"
.
117-119
: Good coverage for testing array indexing of posts
.
Ensuring each indexed title (e.g., posts[0][title]
) is properly bound verifies that the new bracket notation logic works for nested keys.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍 LGTM, we could add a b.RunParallel() benchmark too.
Description
Fixes #3224
Will be backporting to v2 after the PR is get merged
Type of change
Checklist
Before you submit your pull request, please make sure you meet these requirements:
/docs/
directory for Fiber's documentation.Commit formatting
Please use emojis in commit messages for an easy way to identify the purpose or intention of a commit. Check out the emoji cheatsheet here: CONTRIBUTING.md