Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > The full post-condition check requires more test code, but that's not > really a problem. The problem comes in if that test is now too rigid > to future changes in that subcommand. What if the post-conditions > change in a subtle way because of the subcommand does something > differently, but in a way that is not of importance to the top > command? > > In this specific case, the test name says that it "packs non-kept > objects", so we can do more here to validate that post-condition > that we care about. Thanks for clearly laying out the way to think about the issue. I agree with all of it, of course ;-)
