On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 7:48 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > lgtm 2 > > Now it's clear from the function name that this is not to be used as the > cache > tag as is, but that it merely provides the "version" part of it. > > I'm not sure what kind of unit test would add value - I'm okay with adding > none. > The test would basically need to be such that it supports making code > changes in > this area.. and I think the most probable code change will be that we > figure out > "oops, XYZ should've also been taken into account in the cache tag", and > there's > no test to tell us that. Tests like "tests that the tag changes if the flag > change" are mildly useful. >
Yeah. The test I had is essentially: force --some-flag=true; get tag1; force --some-flag=false; get tag2; CHECK(tag1 != tag2). Since this checks only one of three sources of tag differences it's a pretty random unit test. At least a broken test would definitely imply broken code, but clearly not vice versa. I'll be most happy to leave it out. -- -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
