On 11/07/2019 03:13, Derrick Stolee wrote:
I apologize for the incorrect report sent earlier. I changed something about my
workflow, and it changed where build outputs were downloaded and I included an
old report.
-Stolee
---
pu c984b65d414a0da7af629eb476f12b27e13ede0b
jch 2bb3fc833ce3b23a27fdaba73982b617ba480bb7
next f5cf68d754516a24d6a948b93daa5343b6152217
master 6d5b26420848ec3bc7eae46a7ffa54f20276249d
master@{1} 8dca754b1e874719a732bc9ab7b0e14b21b1bc10
[snip]
Uncovered code in 'master' not in 'master@{1}'
--------------------------------------------------------
builtin/branch.c
1fde99cf 841) die(_("The -a, and -r, options to 'git branch' do not take a branch
name.\n"
[snip]
Commits introducting uncovered code:
...
Philip Oakley 1fde99cf doc branch: provide examples for listing remote
tracking branches
Hi Stolee,
Back at [1] (8 Jun 2019) I suggested a possible test that could cover
this update to the message.
The main doc changes went through following [2] (14 Jun 2019) after
confirming that the original RFC note on my patches was just for the
die() message change (which then begat this test coverage omission).
However there are a large number (34) of other die() messages in
branch.c, so it may not be worth a special effort to catch all of them.
I'm minded to let it drop.
Philip
[1]
https://public-inbox.org/git/f28dd5b1-fda8-cf51-5582-067a7d2c2...@iee.org/
[2]
https://public-inbox.org/git/024373d9-e032-1af8-ba26-439ad5620...@iee.org/
