Hello, Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Karthik > > On 05/05/2024 17:09, Karthik Nayak wrote: >> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> I'm slightly concerned that splitting out the update-ref changes means >>> we don't have any test coverage of the new code beyond the part that is >>> used by refs_create_symref() >>> >> >> This is definitely true. But I also caught a bunch of edge cases this >> way because the tests which indirectly use 'refs_create_symref()' are >> quite intensive. > > I forgot to say in my last mail that this is good to know. So it sounds > like the only new code that isn't being exercised by the tests is the > check for the old value? > > Best Wishes > > Phillip That's correct. I think testing that _currently_ would require us to probably expose and test via the unit testing library. I plan to follow this patch series soon with the symref-* ones. While that's not the best argument for not having full test coverage, I hope it is an OK state to be since that path has no users as of this point. Karthik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
