Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

tests: improve coverage for go/bytes2/buffer.go #14958

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jan 19, 2024
Merged

tests: improve coverage for go/bytes2/buffer.go #14958

merged 6 commits into from
Jan 19, 2024

Conversation

EshaanAgg
Copy link
Contributor

@EshaanAgg EshaanAgg commented Jan 16, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Description

Improved the test coverage for go/bytes2/buffer.go to 100%

Related Issue(s)

Fixes part of #14931

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

@EshaanAgg EshaanAgg requested a review from deepthi as a code owner January 16, 2024 05:19
@vitess-bot vitess-bot
Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Jan 16, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Jan 16, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v19.0.0 milestone Jan 16, 2024
dbussink
dbussink reviewed Jan 16, 2024
View reviewed changes
go/bytes2/buffer_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@EshaanAgg
refac: make use of testify/assert
9f59827 
Signed-off-by: Eshaan Aggarwal <[email protected]>
@EshaanAgg EshaanAgg requested a review from dbussink January 16, 2024 11:22
dbussink
dbussink reviewed Jan 16, 2024
View reviewed changes
go/bytes2/buffer_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@EshaanAgg
refac: address review
75589af 
Signed-off-by: Eshaan Aggarwal <[email protected]>
@EshaanAgg EshaanAgg requested a review from dbussink January 16, 2024 13:32
@frouioui frouioui mentioned this pull request Jan 16, 2024
Open
@frouioui frouioui added Type: Testing Component: General Changes throughout the code base and removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Jan 16, 2024
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 16, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (737fdb3) 47.31% compared to head (49f5312) 47.31%.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #14958      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   47.31%   47.31%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1142     1142              
  Lines      239009   239009              
==========================================
- Hits       113091   113086       -5     
- Misses     117327   117331       +4     
- Partials     8591     8592       +1

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@dbussink
Copy link
Contributor

@EshaanAgg Can you resolve the conflict here and update it with latest main?

@EshaanAgg
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dbussink Done!

@dbussink
Copy link
Contributor

@EshaanAgg Sorry, I merged #14940 but I think the style here is better. Are you willing to merge in main and update the tests? We can then merge this one too.

@EshaanAgg
merge upstream
8e1ce81 
Signed-off-by: Eshaan Aggarwal <[email protected]>
@EshaanAgg
revert buffer tests
49f5312 
Signed-off-by: Eshaan Aggarwal <[email protected]>
@EshaanAgg
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dbussink No worries! Merged main and updates the tests.

@dbussink dbussink merged commit 9af8692 into vitessio:main Jan 19, 2024
101 of 102 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@frouioui frouioui frouioui left review comments

@ajm188 ajm188 ajm188 approved these changes

@dbussink dbussink dbussink approved these changes

@deepthi deepthi Awaiting requested review from deepthi deepthi is a code owner

@rohit-nayak-ps rohit-nayak-ps Awaiting requested review from rohit-nayak-ps

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
Component: General Changes throughout the code base Type: Testing
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v19.0.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@EshaanAgg @dbussink @ajm188 @frouioui