tests: correct two inaccurate statements in surveyed scenarios - #83
Open
cargo-affected-bot wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
tests: correct two inaccurate statements in surveyed scenarios#83cargo-affected-bot wants to merge 1 commit into
cargo-affected-bot wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Two accuracy fixes in the functional scenarios today's nightly survey covered. Both are test-file-only; no behavior change.
clean.rs— the post-clean assertion accepted a message that path can't emit.clean_then_status_reports_no_coverageassertedcontains("no coverage data yet") || contains("no coverage data found"). The second alternative is the DB-file-absent branch (status.rs:46-50), and the scenario has already asserted three lines earlier that the file still exists —cleanclears via SQLDELETE, notunlink. So only theCacheMiss::NoCoveragebranch (status.rs:121-125) can fire, which is exactly what the comment above the assertion already says. The||widened the assertion to cover a path the scenario structurally excludes. Dropped it; verified the single-message form still passes.db_has_function_ranges.rs— module doc calledCRATE_ROOT_SENTINEL_ENDpub. It ispub(crate)(coverage.rs:97), per CLAUDE.md's "Items arepub(crate), neverpub". The reason the scenario hard-codesi64::MAXis unchanged and now reads as two independent reasons rather than a wrong one.No regression test: the first change removes an over-broad assertion (a test of a test), the second is a comment. Verified locally with
cargo test --bins(112 passed),cargo test --test functional clean_and--test functional collect_writes_non_sentinel(both pass), andcargo clippy --all-targetsclean.