add tecnickcom/gogen/sfcache

[nicolaasuni]

We want to ensure high quality of the packages. Make sure that you've checked the boxes below before sending a pull request.

• I have read the Contribution Guidelines
• I have read the Maintainers Note
• I have read the Quality Standards

Not every repository (project) will require every option, but most projects should. Check the Contribution Guidelines for details.

• The repo documentation has a pkg.go.dev link.
• The repo documentation has a coverage service link.
• The repo documentation has a goreportcard link.
• The repo has a version-numbered release and a go.mod file.
• The repo has a continuous integration process that automatically runs tests that must pass before new pull requests are merged.
• Continuous integration is used to attempt to catch issues prior to releasing this package to end-users.

Please provide some links to your package to ease the review

• forge link (github.com, gitlab.com, etc): https://github.com/tecnickcom/gogen/tree/main/pkg/sfcache
• pkg.go.dev: https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/tecnickcom/gogen/pkg/sfcache
• goreportcard.com: https://goreportcard.com/report/github.com/tecnickcom/gogen
• coverage service link (codecov, coveralls, etc.): https://coveralls.io/github/tecnickcom/gogen

Pull Request content

• The package has been added to the list in alphabetical order.
• The package has an appropriate description with correct grammar.
• As far as I know, the package has not been listed here before.

Category quality

Note that new categories can be added only when there are 3 packages or more.

Packages added a long time ago might not meet the current guidelines anymore. It would be very helpful if you could check 3-5 packages above and below your submission to ensure that they also still meet the Quality Standards.

Please delete one of the following lines:

• The packages around my addition still meet the Quality Standards.
• I removed the following packages around my addition: (please give a short reason for each removal)

Thanks for your PR, you're awesome! 😎

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Documented a new in-memory cache implementation offering thread-safe, fixed-size storage with single-flight capabilities for managing expensive lookups.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Added a new cache library entry (sfcache) to the README's Data Caches section. The entry documents a simple, in-memory, thread-safe, fixed-size, single-flight cache implementation with a link to the project repository.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Documentation update README.md	Added new cache library entry for sfcache in the Data Caches section

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• Add jetcache-go #5742 — Also adds a new cache library entry to the README's caches list in the same file and section.

Poem

🐰 A cache so swift, in memory it dwells,
Thread-safe and simple, with stories to tell,
In the README it shines, a new bright link,
Fixed-size and single-flight—what faster cache can one think?

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'add tecnickcom/gogen/sfcache' is directly related to the main change, which adds a new cache package entry to the README.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

README.md (1)

725-725: Nit: standardize “singleflight” spelling.

In Go parlance it’s commonly written “singleflight”. Consider this tiny tweak:

- - [sfcache](https://github.com/tecnickcom/gogen/tree/main/pkg/sfcache) - Simple, in-memory, thread-safe, fixed-size, single-flight cache for expensive lookups.
+ - [sfcache](https://github.com/tecnickcom/gogen/tree/main/pkg/sfcache) - Simple, in-memory, thread-safe, fixed-size, singleflight cache for expensive lookups.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2698e59 and 25208ff.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• README.md (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (3)

README.md

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (AGENTS.md)

README.md: When modifying the Awesome list, keep categories with at least three entries
Descriptions in the Awesome list must end with a period
Avoid promotional copy; keep descriptions concise and neutral in the Awesome list
Do not remove existing list content unless removal is requested and justified

Files:

• README.md

**/*.md

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (AGENTS.md)

Keep documentation in English

Files:

• README.md

{README.md,COVERAGE.md}

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (AGENTS.md)

Align rendered documentation (README.md, COVERAGE.md, etc.) with behavior changes in main.go or helper packages

Files:

• README.md

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)

• GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis
• GitHub Check: quality

🔇 Additional comments (1)

README.md (1)

725-725: LGTM: entry fits guidelines.

• Neutral, concise, ends with a period.
• Correct alphabetical position under Caches.
• Subfolder link style matches other monorepo entries.

[github-actions]

Automated Quality Checks (from CONTRIBUTING minimum standards)

• Repo: FAIL (missing semver release)
• pkg.go.dev: OK
• goreportcard: OK (grade unknown)
• coverage: missing

These checks are a best-effort automation and do not replace human review.

[nicolaasuni]

@avelino I would greatly appreciate your help in investigating this build failure.

The 'PR Quality Checks' are failing, and the reported issues seem to be false positives. Given that the project adheres to semantic versioning and has functional code coverage, I am seeking clarification on whether this requires a fix from my side or indicates an error with the automated checks.

Although I considered the possibility that awesome-go does not permit packages nested within larger library collections, a review of the README.md revealed precedents for similar entries.

Any guidance you could offer would be highly valuable.

Thank you for your time and help.