Hi Gábor, On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 12:41:34AM +0100, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > In any case, here's the patch on top (with a lightly modified version of > > the test you wrote in <20230830200218.GA5147@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > I certainly hope that I'm just misunderstanding, and you don't > actually imply that this one test in its current form would qualify as > thorough testing... :) I hear what you're saying, though I think that the interesting behavior that would be most likely to regress is the transition between different Bloom filter settings/hash-version across split commit-graph layers. We have extensive tests on either "side" of this transition for both v1 and v2 Bloom filters, so I'm not sure what we'd want to add there. Like I said, the transition is the primary (previously-)untested area of this code that I would want to ensure is covered to protect against regressions. I think that the most recent round of this series accomplishes that goal. Thanks, Taylor
