On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 6:16 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > At Thu, 22 Feb 2024 09:36:43 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote in > > Yes, I'm happy with all of the changes. The proposed patch appears to > > cover all instances related to slotsync.c, and it looks fine to > > me. Thanks! > > I'd like to raise another potential issue outside the patch. The patch > needed to change only one test item even though it changed nine > messages. This means eigh out of nine messages that the patch changed > are not covered by our test. I doubt all of them are worth additional > test items; however, I think we want to increase coverage. > > Do you think some additional tests for the rest of the messages are > worth the trouble? >
We have discussed this during development and didn't find it worth adding tests for all misconfigured parameters. However, in the next patch where we are planning to add a slot sync worker that will automatically sync slots, we are adding a test for one more parameter. I am not against adding tests for all the parameters but it didn't appeal to add more test cycles for this. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
