[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10266?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14743982#comment-14743982
]
Blake Eggleston commented on CASSANDRA-10266:
---------------------------------------------
I agree with your first point. To your second, I'm confident that I've explored
every branch, but not every possible combination of inputs. As far as being
future proof, I'm not sure one approach will be more future proof than another,
since either approach will need to be updated as changes are made. In any case,
I agree that a randomized test will be more thorough. You didn't address my
second point though, which is that for a similar effort, we can exercise 10x
the amount of code, even more edge cases, and more potential bugs, albeit at
the cost of a fully comprehensive test of Rows (randomized testing of
DataResolver would exercise merge and diff, but not copy and collectStats). I
think both should be implemented, but I don't think they can both be
implemented for rc1. WDYT?
> Introduce direct unit test coverage for Rows
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-10266
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10266
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core
> Reporter: Benedict
> Assignee: Blake Eggleston
> Fix For: 3.0.0 rc1
>
>
> As with much of the codebase, we have no direct unit test coverage for
> {{Rows}}, and we should remedy this given how central it is to behaviour.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
