On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 10:39:30 AM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote:
> 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). > Got it, thanks for the explanation. However, it still remains, I think, that the behavior you're testing is undocumented., yes? > > - Yegappan > > If the tests are to be changed, I suggest using something other than an >> empty string and adding the substitution to Vim documentation. >> >> >> -mike -- -- 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/2d0bf873-db5c-4675-a671-fe01aa1bbc09n%40googlegroups.com.
