From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 21:07:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Git Test Coverage Report (Wed. July 10)
Message-ID: <6613af78-9c73-6e0d-79f2-9206cce0ab8f@iee.org>
In-Reply-To: <0bb53084-0604-21c1-c127-0eecd6481bbb@gmail.com>

On 11/07/2019 03:13, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> I apologize for the incorrect report sent earlier. I changed something about my workflow, and it changed where build outputs were downloaded and I included an old report.
>
> -Stolee
>
> ---
>
> pu	c984b65d414a0da7af629eb476f12b27e13ede0b
> jch	2bb3fc833ce3b23a27fdaba73982b617ba480bb7
> next	f5cf68d754516a24d6a948b93daa5343b6152217
> master	6d5b26420848ec3bc7eae46a7ffa54f20276249d
> master@{1}	8dca754b1e874719a732bc9ab7b0e14b21b1bc10
>
[snip]
>
> Uncovered code in 'master' not in 'master@{1}'
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> builtin/branch.c
> 1fde99cf 841) die(_("The -a, and -r, options to 'git branch' do not take a branch name.\n"
>

[snip]

>
> Commits introducting uncovered code:
> ...
> Philip Oakley	1fde99cf doc branch: provide examples for listing remote tracking branches
>
Hi Stolee,

Back at [1] (8 Jun 2019) I suggested a possible test that could cover 
this update to the message.

The main doc changes went through following [2] (14 Jun 2019) after 
confirming that the original RFC note on my patches was just for the 
die() message change (which then begat this test coverage omission).

However there are a large number (34) of other die() messages in 
branch.c, so it may not be worth a special effort to catch all of them. 
I'm minded to let it drop.

Philip

[1] 
https://public-inbox.org/git/f28dd5b1-fda8-cf51-5582-067a7d2c2472@iee.org/
[2] 
https://public-inbox.org/git/024373d9-e032-1af8-ba26-439ad5620bf5@iee.org/