Hi,
On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 7:29 AM Michael Soyka <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I agree that it is undesirable to reduce test coverage. However, if the
> purpose of the tests is to verify failure to send because a server does not
> exist, why not use some unlikely name for the server as is done in
> Test_remote_foreground():
>
> assert_fails('remote_foreground("NonExistingServer")', 'E241:')
> assert_fails('remote_foreground("")', 'E241:')
>
> The first call makes the purpose of the test clear. As a side note, isn't
> the second call redundant or is its purpose to test the substitution of
> "GVIM for "" under the assumption it does not exist?
>
The purpose of the second test is to verify the behavior of
remote_forground() with an empty
string for the server name (as you described). This test was added as part
of checking the
behavior of built-in functions with an empty string as an argument
(8.2.3459).
- Yegappan
If the tests are to be changed, I suggest using something other than an
> empty string and adding the substitution to Vim documentation.
>
>
>
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/CAAW7x7kAOKGG5Y2_w-L-uDjwxbohfBGK5e0nsng58OHWA5CBZw%40mail.gmail.com.
