On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 6:16 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At Thu, 22 Feb 2024 09:36:43 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in
> > Yes, I'm happy with all of the changes. The proposed patch appears to
> > cover all instances related to slotsync.c, and it looks fine to
> > me. Thanks!
>
> I'd like to raise another potential issue outside the patch. The patch
> needed to change only one test item even though it changed nine
> messages. This means eigh out of nine messages that the patch changed
> are not covered by our test. I doubt all of them are worth additional
> test items; however, I think we want to increase coverage.
>
> Do you think some additional tests for the rest of the messages are
> worth the trouble?
>
We have discussed this during development and didn't find it worth
adding tests for all misconfigured parameters. However, in the next
patch where we are planning to add a slot sync worker that will
automatically sync slots, we are adding a test for one more parameter.
I am not against adding tests for all the parameters but it didn't
appeal to add more test cycles for this.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.