refactor: replace Split in loops with more efficient SplitSeq

[box4wangjing]

strings.SplitSeq (introduced in Go 1.23) returns a lazy sequence (strings.Seq), allowing gopher to iterate over tokens one by one without creating an intermediate slice.

It significantly reduces memory allocations and can improve performance for long strings.

More info: golang/go#61901

[aldas]

Thanks, there are probably other places where this same logic could be applied - did you look for these also?

[box4wangjing]

Thanks, there are probably other places where this same logic could be applied - did you look for these also?

Thank you for your reply. I’ve checked everything, and I only found this one case. @aldas

[aldas]

You could try grep -R --include="*.go" -A 5 "strings.Split" .

If think there are couple of places more where this change could be applied.

[box4wangjing]

All of the matched case:

➜  echo git:(master) grep -R --include="*.go" -A 5 "strings.Split" .
./middleware/extractor.go:	sources := strings.Split(lookups, ",")
./middleware/extractor.go-	var extractors = make([]ValuesExtractor, 0)
./middleware/extractor.go-	for _, source := range sources {
./middleware/extractor.go:		parts := strings.Split(source, ":")
./middleware/extractor.go-		if len(parts) < 2 {
./middleware/extractor.go-			return nil, fmt.Errorf("extractor source for lookup could not be split into needed parts: %v", source)
./middleware/extractor.go-		}
./middleware/extractor.go-
./middleware/extractor.go-		switch parts[0] {
--
./router_test.go:	assert.ElementsMatch(t, []string{"COPY", "GET", "LOCK", "OPTIONS"}, strings.Split(c.Response().Header().Get(HeaderAllow), ", "))
./router_test.go-}
./router_test.go-
./router_test.go-func TestMethodNotAllowedAndNotFound(t *testing.T) {
./router_test.go-	e := New()
./router_test.go-
--
./router_test.go:			tokens := strings.SplitSeq(route.Path[1:], "/")
./router_test.go-			for token := range tokens {
./router_test.go-				if token[0] == ':' {
./router_test.go-					assert.Equal(t, c.pathValues.GetOr(token[1:], "---none---"), token)
./router_test.go-				}
./router_test.go-			}
--
./bind_test.go:	*a = StringArray(strings.Split(src, ","))
./bind_test.go-	return nil
./bind_test.go-}
./bind_test.go-
./bind_test.go-func (s *Struct) UnmarshalParam(src string) error {
./bind_test.go-	*s = Struct{
--
./bind_test.go:	var values = strings.Split(value, ",")
./bind_test.go-	var numbers = make([]int, 0, len(values))
./bind_test.go-
./bind_test.go-	for _, v := range values {
./bind_test.go-		n, err := strconv.ParseInt(v, 10, 64)
./bind_test.go-		if err != nil {
--
./bind_test.go:		var values = strings.Split(param, ",")
./bind_test.go-		for _, v := range values {
./bind_test.go-			n, err := strconv.ParseInt(v, 10, 64)
./bind_test.go-			if err != nil {
./bind_test.go-				return fmt.Errorf("'%s' is not an integer", v)
./bind_test.go-			}
--
./ip.go:		ips := append(strings.Split(strings.Join(xffs, ","), ","), directIP)
./ip.go-		for i := len(ips) - 1; i >= 0; i-- {
./ip.go-			ips[i] = strings.TrimSpace(ips[i])
./ip.go-			ips[i] = strings.TrimPrefix(ips[i], "[")
./ip.go-			ips[i] = strings.TrimSuffix(ips[i], "]")
./ip.go-			ip := net.ParseIP(ips[i])
--
./binder.go:		tmpValues = append(tmpValues, strings.Split(v, delimiter)...)
./binder.go-	}
./binder.go-
./binder.go-	switch d := dest.(type) {
./binder.go-	case *[]string:
./binder.go-		*d = tmpValues
➜  echo git:(master) 

[box4wangjing]

You could try grep -R --include="*.go" -A 5 "strings.Split" .

If think there are couple of places more where this change could be applied.

@aldas

It’s been updated.

I've reviewed all occurrences of strings.Split in the codebase. Here's why the other cases are not suitable for conversion to SplitSeq, for reference:

1. ip.go:250 - Not suitable

ips := append(strings.Split(strings.Join(xffs, ","), ","), directIP)
for i := len(ips) - 1; i >= 0; i-- {
    ips[i] = strings.TrimSpace(ips[i])
    // ...
    return strings.TrimSpace(ips[0])
}

Reasons:

• Uses append() which requires a concrete slice
• Accesses elements by index: ips[i] and ips[0]
• Iterates backwards using len(ips)
• SplitSeq returns an iterator, not a slice

2. binder.go:424 - Not suitable

for _, v := range values {
    tmpValues = append(tmpValues, strings.Split(v, delimiter)...)
}

Reason:

• Uses the ... spread operator to append all split results
• This requires a concrete slice, not an iterator

3. bind_test.go:120, 1173, 1281 - Not suitable

*a = StringArray(strings.Split(src, ","))
var values = strings.Split(value, ",")

Reasons:

• Test code with simple assignments
• Results are stored directly or used for type conversion
• Not in performance-critical loops
• Minimal benefit from optimization

4. router_test.go:826 - Not suitable

assert.ElementsMatch(t, []string{"COPY", "GET", "LOCK", "OPTIONS"}, 
    strings.Split(c.Response().Header().Get(HeaderAllow), ", "))

Reason:

• Used in test assertion that expects a slice
• ElementsMatch requires a concrete slice for comparison

5. middleware/extractor.go:91 (inner split) - Not suitable

for source := range sources {
    parts := strings.Split(source, ":")
    if len(parts) < 2 {
        return nil, fmt.Errorf("...")
    }
    switch parts[0] {
    case "query":
        extractors = append(extractors, valuesFromQuery(parts[1], limit))
    // ...
    if len(parts) > 2 {
        prefix = parts[2]
    }
}

Reasons:

• Uses len(parts) to check the number of elements
• Accesses elements by index: parts[0], parts[1], parts[2]
• These operations require a concrete slice

---

Summary

The only suitable case was the outer loop in middleware/extractor.go:88 where we iterate over sources without needing indexed access or length checks. All other cases require slice-specific operations (indexing, length, append with spread, or direct assignment) that are incompatible with the iterator pattern of SplitSeq.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.17%. Comparing base (01b45be) to head (f535bac).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2969   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.17%   93.17%           
=======================================
  Files          43       43           
  Lines        4501     4501           
=======================================
  Hits         4194     4194           
  Misses        189      189           
  Partials      118      118           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.