Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

test: 100% coverage on blocks/set #3084

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 16, 2016
Merged

Conversation

Kubuxu
Copy link
Member

@Kubuxu Kubuxu commented Aug 15, 2016

License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Jakub Sztandera [email protected]

License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Jakub Sztandera <[email protected]>
@whyrusleeping
Copy link
Member

whats with all the bithacking logic? It seems you could make this a tad more readable

@Kubuxu
Copy link
Member Author

Kubuxu commented Aug 16, 2016

It makes the slice with elements that have some transformations applied deterministically in this case:

half is added, different half is removed and different half is re-added again.

This way we cover following cases: just add, add and removed, add removed and add, remove on element not in the set.

I think I can make it a bit more readable

License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Jakub Sztandera <[email protected]>
@whyrusleeping
Copy link
Member

alright, still a bit hacky looking, but LGTM

@whyrusleeping whyrusleeping merged commit 8c237ce into master Aug 16, 2016
@whyrusleeping whyrusleeping deleted the feat/test-cover-blocks-set branch August 16, 2016 16:31
@whyrusleeping
Copy link
Member

@Kubuxu want to make sure to check off the boxes in #3053

@ghost ghost mentioned this pull request Dec 23, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants