Closed Peque closed 5 years ago
Merging #338 into master will increase coverage by
<.01%
. The diff coverage is100%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #338 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 99.26% 99.27% +<.01%
==========================================
Files 26 26
Lines 3548 3573 +25
Branches 257 259 +2
==========================================
+ Hits 3522 3547 +25
Misses 14 14
Partials 12 12
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
osbrain/tests/test_agent.py | 100% <100%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
osbrain/agent.py | 98.18% <100%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2ec72a2...ccaf03d. Read the comment docs.
@ocaballeror I did not like the old test very much, but I am not against adding another test if required.
The question would be: what would you test? I would not want to test that, after closing a socket and waiting an arbitrary amount of time, the agent is still alive (in particular the arbitrary amount of time). Could you reproduce the error you were getting without that time sleep?
Otherwise, we could simply test assert not agent.has_socket('alias')
as we do for bound sockets, but not sure it adds much.
Yes, the test would need to be changed now that we have a new one to test this specific bug.
I'm OK with the has_socket
test, I think that should be enough.
@ocaballeror Pushed the little test: 591b8b1fb1f5e422a5d9c33493a7324d8280fff8
If it is okay with you, I will merge this and make a minor release.
@ocaballeror Thanks a lot! New version is already available in PyPI. :blush:
Codecov Report
98.18% <100%> (ø)
99.77% <94.73%> (-0.23%)
Continue to review full report at Codecov.