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

Add test for multi-return constructor being called once #75

Merged
merged 2 commits into from May 30, 2017

Conversation

glibsm
Copy link
Collaborator

@glibsm glibsm commented May 30, 2017

It passes as-is, but covers an important case.

There is a similar test for counting a single-return constructor.
Just want to make sure we don't accidentally break this while migrating
the map to a composite key in the future

There is a similar test, but it doesn't cover the multi-return scenario.
Just want to make sure we don't accidentally break this while migrating
the map to a composite key in the future
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented May 30, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 89.222% when pulling 66025f9 on gsm-multi-return-count into cc127cb on ajs-fix-behavior-tests.

@@ -212,6 +212,27 @@ func TestEndToEndSuccess(t *testing.T) {
require.NoError(t, c.Invoke(consumer), "invoke failed")
})

t.Run("multiple-type constructor is called once", func(t *testing.T) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you add test for func() (*A, *A, error) as well?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure! Good idea

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented May 30, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 89.222% when pulling fab43f6 on gsm-multi-return-count into cc127cb on ajs-fix-behavior-tests.

@glibsm glibsm merged commit 863426c into ajs-fix-behavior-tests May 30, 2017
@glibsm glibsm deleted the gsm-multi-return-count branch May 30, 2017 23:29
abhinav pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 1, 2017
There is a similar test, but it doesn't cover the multi-return scenario.
Just want to make sure we don't accidentally break this while migrating
the map to a composite key in the future
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants