docs(gc): the copy-slot-hoists tests cover one hoist, not two (#10388) - #10402
proggeramlug wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
…S#10388) The module header claimed the copying minor hoists two per-parent facts, each with a sabotaged twin. Only the weak-holder fact landed; the old-generation fact was deliberately left out because no sabotage of it could be made to fail. Say so instead of claiming coverage the file does not have.
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Advanced Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 8 included reviews per hour; 6 remain after this review. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe module documentation now describes only the weak-holder fact hoist. It explains the absence of an old-generation witness test and identifies independent sticky dirty-page coverage. ChangesGC Documentation
Priority: ⬇️ Low Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes Change: Other Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to This documentation-only update introduces no concrete production or test-execution risk and is mergeable. 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1🛠️ Fix failing CI checks 💡
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
Landed via merge train #10413 (v0.5.1588). All source commits preserve authorship; merged main matches the validated train exactly. |
Addresses CodeRabbit's review comment on #10388, which landed before the comment was acted on.
gc/tests/copy_slot_hoists.rsopened by claiming the copying minor hoists two per-parent facts (weak holder and old generation), each pinned by a sabotaged twin. Only the weak-holder fact landed, and the file contains exactly one test pair for it. The old-generation hoist was deliberately left out of #10388 because no sabotage of it could be made to fail (sticky dirty-page coverage carries the old→young edge independently of the remembered-set re-insertion that fact controls).A test header that claims coverage the file does not have is worse than no header: the next reader assumes the generation hoist is witnessed. This rewrites the header to describe the one hoist that is tested, and records why the other one is absent, so it is not re-added on the strength of a test that does not exist.
Comment-only change to a test module; no code, behaviour or generated output changes.
skip-changelogperchangelog.d/README.md.Summary by CodeRabbit