Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: >> I thought the bug could be triggered when commit.gpgsign was true and >> it was not overriden on the commandline, is it worth adding a test for >> that? > > ... If we want to verify that the > gpg_sign is correctly allocated before it is free()d, then the test case I > added *already* covers it,...
It depends on what we are testing, how we anticipate this code will be broken by others in the future and how we want to futureproof the code. We can say "already covers it" if we know the implementation (especially, the code calls free() when it replaces opts->gpg_sign always, so the other side you are choosing not to test will die the same way) and assume it won't be broken (i.e. the attitude is OK for whitebox testing). I'd think that this particular case it is sufficient to test just one; I doubt that adding another will increse the test load measurably, though.
