Support mocking of methods that return functions with variadic arguments

[alec-w]

Description

Previously mocking a method such as

LogMethodf(level string) func(msg string, a ...interface{})

gave a struct with method signature

LogMethodf(level string) func(msg string, a []interface{})

this resolves it so that the generated struct fulfils the original contract.

• Fixes #431

Type of change

• [X] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• [ ] This change requires a documentation update

Version of Golang used when building/testing:

• [ ] 1.11
• [ ] 1.12
• [ ] 1.13
• [ ] 1.14
• [ ] 1.15
• [X] 1.16
• [ ] 1.17
• [ ] 1.18

How Has This Been Tested?

Extended existing variadic fixture to cover this case and checked that generated mock was as expected.

Checklist

• [X] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• [X] I have performed a self-review of my code
• [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• [X] My changes generate no new warnings
• [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• [X] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

[alec-w]

I'm still getting to grips with the generator code. This feels a bit of a hack (we strip the slice markers and replace them with ellipses if we have figured it is variadic, is there a way to stop that being done in the first place? would appear to require modifying renderType which is used in a lot of places). Also not fully clear on what generator tests to add.

There was also seeming a mock generated that didn't exist before - but since the interface exists in the example_project dir in the fixtures it seems this mock should exist?

[LandonTClipp]

Thanks for the update @alec-w . I am a bit swamped this week so I will take a look hopefully early next week.

[gliptak]

would the only outstanding action here "Changes Requested"?

[LandonTClipp]

I believe so yes, I’d have to take another look to see if there was anything else I missed.

[LandonTClipp]

Closing this as there hasn't been any activity for a while. Please ping me with a new PR, or on this one, if it ever gets updated. Thanks!