Closed thomcc closed 2 years ago
Merging #32 (f80f573) into main (f5eed2a) will decrease coverage by
0.07%
. The diff coverage is64.28%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #32 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 96.51% 96.43% -0.08%
==========================================
Files 6 6
Lines 860 869 +9
==========================================
+ Hits 830 838 +8
- Misses 30 31 +1
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
src/arc_str.rs | 92.24% <58.33%> (-0.19%) |
:arrow_down: |
tests/arc_str.rs | 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) |
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 f5eed2a...f80f573. Read the comment docs.
The name is a bit dubious — arguably it should be
try_new
. I prefer this name, as it's very clear in which case it is that failure occurs.That said, arguably it should still return a Result type, but I don't think it matters.
In particular: I don't really think it's worth exposing the distinction between the different allocation failures, as (technically) that could be used to argue changing the size of an ThinInner header in the future is breaking (as code that only handles one error might have to handle the other).
This also tells codecov it's not a big deal if coverage drops a little (which we used to do, but I guess the format of it's configuration changed? Who the hell knows).
This is kind of needed as I'm unsure how to artificially trigger this failure (the code is straightforward enough, though). If/when we support custom allocators (if an API for this ever stabilizes) testing that case will become more straightforward, as it could be done with a mocked allocator.