Skip to content
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

sqlmock panics when closing empty Rows object #337

Open
raxod502-plaid opened this issue May 7, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

sqlmock panics when closing empty Rows object #337

raxod502-plaid opened this issue May 7, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels

Comments

@raxod502-plaid
Copy link

Operating system and Go Version

macOS 14.4.1, Go 1.20

Issue

When using db.Query to perform a query that does not return any rows, sqlmock panics instead of performing a no-op as other database drivers do.

A workaround is to use db.Exec instead so that there is no rows object to close, but the sqlmock behavior is incorrect.

Reproduction steps

package main

import (
	"github.com/DATA-DOG/go-sqlmock"
)

func assert(err error) {
	if err != nil {
		panic(err.Error())
	}
}

func main() {
	db, mock, err := sqlmock.New()
	assert(err)
	mock.ExpectQuery("TRUNCATE table").WithoutArgs().WillReturnRows()
	rows, err := db.Query("TRUNCATE table")
	assert(err)
	err = rows.Close()
	assert(err)
}

Expected Result

No error (or, at worst, an error returned from rows.Close)

Actual Result

panic: runtime error: index out of range [0] with length 0

goroutine 1 [running]:
github.com/DATA-DOG/go-sqlmock.(*rowSets).Close(0x14000124040)
	/Users/rrosborough/.asdf/installs/golang/1.20/packages/pkg/mod/github.com/!d!a!t!a-!d!o!g/[email protected]/rows.go:40 +0x64
database/sql.(*Rows).close.func1()
	/Users/rrosborough/.asdf/installs/golang/1.20/go/src/database/sql/sql.go:3287 +0x34
database/sql.withLock({0x100b84d50, 0x14000142000}, 0x14000149eb8)
	/Users/rrosborough/.asdf/installs/golang/1.20/go/src/database/sql/sql.go:3405 +0x7c
database/sql.(*Rows).close(0x14000134180, {0x0, 0x0})
	/Users/rrosborough/.asdf/installs/golang/1.20/go/src/database/sql/sql.go:3286 +0x130
database/sql.(*Rows).Close(0x140001360e0?)
	/Users/rrosborough/.asdf/installs/golang/1.20/go/src/database/sql/sql.go:3270 +0x24
main.main()
	/Users/rrosborough/temp/sqlmockexample/main.go:19 +0x12c
@diegommm
Copy link
Collaborator

diegommm commented Jun 8, 2024

Hi @raxod502-plaid! Thank you for your report. You are right that it shouldn't panic, that's a bug. It is also true that Exec would be preferable for executing any SQL that will never return any rows, like TRUNCATE.

Quick facts:

  • A Query/QueryRow is expected to always return at least one RowSet.
  • An Exec is like a Query/QueryRow whose RowSets are discarded (but has other properties).
  • The panic happens because it tries to look for the first RowSet and the code doesn't check that there is none. This is the bug you describe.

Correct usage:

  • The recommendation for your code is to use Exec as you found out. That's not a workaround, your code will benefit from explicitly stating that you are not expecting any RowSets to be returned, and additionally you may get a sql.Result (with rows affected and last inserted ID) if your driver supports it and if it makes sense for the operation.
  • For code that could potentially return rows (like a SELECT, INSERT .. RETURNING, etc.), the correct expectation to be set is WillReturnRows(mock.NewRows(colNames)). This tells the mock that one RowSet is expected.
  • It is valid to use WillReturnRows(mock.NewRows(nil)), because it states that you will expect exactly one RowSet with no columns, which is equivalent to an Exec discarding the sql.Result.

Consider a more complex example:

const myQuery := `
    SELECT disabled FROM users WHERE id = ?;
    DELETE FROM logins WHERE created_at < ?;
`
tx.QueryContext(ctx, myQuery, theID, theTimestamp)

That's a query returning two RowSets, the first one with a single column, and the second with none. A test expectation for it would be like:

mock.ExpectQuery(myQuery).WithoutArgs().WillReturnRows(
    mock.NewRows([]string{"disabled"}),
    mock.NewRows(nil),
)

Conclusions:

sqlmock should not panic this way if WillReturnRows is not passed any arguments. Instead, it should provide a help message explaining that it expects at least one (non-nil) argument to WillReturnRows. It should also not panic if NextResultSet is called and there is none provided, but instead fail the test stating that a call to that method was not expected (didn't check if that's already in place, just saying).

@diegommm diegommm added the bug label Jun 8, 2024
@ninadingole
Copy link
Collaborator

#314 will fix this issue

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants