IStorageServer tests, part 2 #1126

2021-09-10T13:52:38Z

itamarst commented

2021-09-10 13:52:38 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Fixes https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/3795

coveralls commented

2021-09-14 13:07:56 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Coverage decreased (-0.02%) to 95.478% when pulling b1b64c787e on 3795-istorageserver-tests-part-2 into c67c0727e6 on master.

[![Coverage Status](https://coveralls.io/builds/43098222/badge)](https://coveralls.io/builds/43098222) Coverage decreased (-0.02%) to 95.478% when pulling **b1b64c787ebd84d12df754d7455c46a0062adc04 on 3795-istorageserver-tests-part-2** into **c67c0727e6b69e1d026551490c6e9c21b4d94a63 on master**.

exarkun (Migrated from github.com) approved these changes 2021-09-27 18:01:34 +00:00

exarkun (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

Thanks. One minor point inline. Address then please merge.

src/allmydata/test/test_istorageserver.py

exarkun (Migrated from github.com) commented

2021-09-27 17:59:49 +00:00

I don't think random bytes are in short enough supply that we can't just have 256 * 17 of them. I suspect that the test is fine in practice as written but conceivably it could miss an offset-by-256 error in the implementation as written because of this repetition in the test data..

I don't think random bytes are in short enough supply that we can't just have 256 * 17 of them. I suspect that the test is fine in practice as written but _conceivably_ it could miss an offset-by-256 error in the implementation as written because of this repetition in the test data..