-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 677
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add skips and comments for certain mutants #4604
Add skips and comments for certain mutants #4604
Conversation
This became caught in the meantime `stacks-common/src/types/mod.rs:103:9: replace StacksEpochId::supports_pox_missed_slot_unlocks `
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## next #4604 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 83.58% 83.18% -0.41%
==========================================
Files 471 465 -6
Lines 337958 330892 -7066
Branches 317 0 -317
==========================================
- Hits 282486 275248 -7238
- Misses 55464 55644 +180
+ Partials 8 0 -8
... and 355 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
This follows the same structure as #4593 which was previously merged. It includes the mutants for multiple PRs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the associated comments should be regular comments, not doc comments. cargo doc
is great for figuring out how to use an API, and these comments don't help anyone actually use the functions
Those comments act as placeholders for missing tests, they should be reference for who wants to write the test cases that are in the comments and aren't treated by the functions. There should be something on the code to point to the specific missing cases so that a developer could know which test cases to add. Would it be enough to change them to simple comments instead of doc comments? Or do you think we should move them somewhere externally but also keep a short reference so that the cases can be seen when going to that external source. Also curious what that external source should be and how should I give access to the others to modify it if some of the tests are added. |
This is fine by me. Although you should add a second reviewer on here for another opinion |
I've added the blockchain team, but it treated your review in that behalf, so I'll add it again. |
@jbencin I've updated this to have regular comments |
As this is outdated and for |
Migrated the PR here #4790. |
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Related issue #4587
List of PRs addressed:
cycle-id
ranges to synthetic pox events #4414Box
ing ofSymbolicExpression
s #4530nakamoto-neon
mode #4578