On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:59 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 04:08:23AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 9:16 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is the new version patch which addressed above and most of Bertrand's
> > > comments.
> > >
> > > TODO: trying to add one test for the case the slot is valid on primary while the
> > > synced slots is invalidated on the standby.
> >
> > Here is the V85_2 patch set that added the test and fixed one typo,
> > there are no other code changes.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Out of curiosity I ran a code coverage and the result for slotsync.c can be
> found in [1].
>
> It appears that:
>
> - only one function is not covered (slotsync_failure_callback()).
> - 84% of the slotsync.c code is covered, the parts that are not are mainly
> related to "errors".
>
> Worth to try to extend the coverage? (I've in mind 731, 739, 766, 778, 786, 796,
> 808)
>
All these additional line numbers mentioned by you are ERROR paths. I
think if we want we can easily cover most of those but I am not sure
if there is a benefit to cover each error path.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.