Hello,


Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Karthik
>
> On 05/05/2024 17:09, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I'm slightly concerned that splitting out the update-ref changes means
>>> we don't have any test coverage of the new code beyond the part that is
>>> used by refs_create_symref()
>>>
>>
>> This is definitely true. But I also caught a bunch of edge cases this
>> way because the tests which indirectly use 'refs_create_symref()' are
>> quite intensive.
>
> I forgot to say in my last mail that this is good to know. So it sounds
> like the only new code that isn't being exercised by the tests is the
> check for the old value?
>
> Best Wishes
>
> Phillip

That's correct. I think testing that _currently_ would require us to
probably expose and test via the unit testing library. I plan to follow
this patch series soon with the symref-* ones. While that's not the best
argument for not having full test coverage, I hope it is an OK state to
be since that path has no users as of this point.

Karthik