On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:59 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 04:08:23AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 9:16 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) > > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > Here is the new version patch which addressed above and most of Bertrand's > > > comments. > > > > > > TODO: trying to add one test for the case the slot is valid on primary > > > while the > > > synced slots is invalidated on the standby. > > > > Here is the V85_2 patch set that added the test and fixed one typo, > > there are no other code changes. > > Thanks! > > Out of curiosity I ran a code coverage and the result for slotsync.c can be > found in [1]. > > It appears that: > > - only one function is not covered (slotsync_failure_callback()). > - 84% of the slotsync.c code is covered, the parts that are not are mainly > related to "errors". > > Worth to try to extend the coverage? (I've in mind 731, 739, 766, 778, 786, > 796, > 808) >
All these additional line numbers mentioned by you are ERROR paths. I think if we want we can easily cover most of those but I am not sure if there is a benefit to cover each error path. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
