Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] Improve path collision conflict resolutions

From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 2, 2018, 19:09 UTC
Message-ID: <232094ce-6872-4039-06a6-af40c709cac0@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181102185317.31015-1-newren@gmail.com>

On 11/2/2018 2:53 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Major question:
>    * You'll note that I edited the last two patches to mark them as RFC.
>      To be honest, I'm not sure what to do with these.  They improve code
>      coverage of new code, but the same gaps existed in the old code;
>      they only show up in the coverage-diff because I essentially moved
>      code around to a new improved function.  Since the new code doesn't
>      really add new abilities but rather just shifts the handling of
>      these conflicts to a common function, they shouldn't need any more
>      testcases than previously and modifying the existing patches thus
>      feels slightly misleading.  That line of thought leads me to believe
>      that perhaps putting them in a separate combined patch of their own
>      with a decent commit message is the right way to go.  On the other
>      hand, squashing them to the commits they're marked as fixups for
>      shows which logical part of the code the tests are related to, which
>      seems like a good thing.  So what's the right way to handle these?

I appreciate the effort you made to improve test coverage! It's unfortunate that this portion wasn't covered earlier, because we could have broken it and not noticed until a release.

I think making them separate commits is fine, and the comment on the test case is helpful. The fact that you only had to change the commit timestamps in order to get the coverage makes me reexamine the code and realize that maybe the "right" thing to do is to reduce our code clones. (This is also how I was looking at the wrong block of the patch when talking about it not being covered.) I'll look at the patch and see if I can contribute a concrete code suggestion there.

Aside: I hope that I am not being annoying by poking around with the 
test coverage reports. It does give me a way to target my review 
efforts, especially into changes that touch areas outside my expertise 
(like this one).

Thanks,

-Stolee