CI didn't like my go.sum. How can I fix it?

Hey @EldarKurbanov you'll need to run go mod tidy in the top level module and each of sub modules to clean up the go.sum files.

Regarding the test coverage changes I'd imagine you probably only need to verify no leak in one of the top level tests as they cover almost all the code and run on every operating system.

Could you help me a bit and clarify a few things: if I understood correctly, I need to leave a check for a goroutine leak only in one test?

Hi @EldarKurbanov apologies for the delay.

Yes I suggest this is probably only actually needed inline inside the Test_DefaultConfig test as it should cover most lines of code already.

We also should attempt to keep the coverage above 90% as a general rule project so users can be confident from a glance we're reliable. Is there anything you can do to get those extra lines you've added covered?

I would really be very happy if you could tell me how I can check my added code that close the connection to the database.

The only one the way I see for increase test coverage is by adding a mock to the database connection. I can do it if there are no better ideas and no one will mind.

I removed defer verifyLeak(t) as you suggested and left it only in Test_DefaultConfig.

Looks much better! I think you're correct maybe wrapping db := sql.OpenDB in a func and passing that into these methods, or utilising a new interface that wraps up these responsibilities would be the best way forward.

There are some good examples of making sure these error cases are covered in decompression_test.go if you need a template to work off. This is largely utilising functional wrappers, the preferred approach in this library.

Thank you for your suggestion! But I found an easier way to test the database connection closing code, wrote a test for it, and the coverage increased. I would be very glad to hear your opinion about the rewritten code.

Hey @EldarKurbanov sorry this has taken so long! I needed some bandwidth to get my head around your changes. They make sense to me now. I may try and clean up a little in the next few releases to align better with the style of the rest of the code, and make the tests a little more verbose, but functionally this looks great.

Thanks for your contribution and hopefully this helps resolve your issues!