Notemapper completeness: equivalents around skipped flat-keys, and ♯-support #90
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
added 3 commits
January 23, 2024 13:53
Previously, ♭ already worked, but we somehow overlooked ♯. Choose a string.replace strategy to collapse the cases, rather than adding another 26 lines of almost-redundant `case ♯:`, to keep the boilerplate to a minimum. For consistency, do the same for the pre-existing `case ♭:`.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I have recently been reading architecture articles on not striving for 100% code coverage.
I found this very enlightening, as it's the opposite to what I've been doing so far.
The articles posit that 100% coverage as a blind goal leads to very brittle tests, needless busywork when refactoring codes (due to overfitted test-cases), and in general is a dogma that should not be blindly followed.
Instead, the articles advise to use coverage-gaps to guide deeper analysis of the productive code, looking for holes that bugs could theoretically hide in.
I revisited my (spotty)
NoteMapperTestwhile attempting to keep this mindset.At the same time, reading about fuzz-testing inspired me to do an unbiased "all possible notes" test, which indeed uncovered gaps.
Ironically, I did end up with 100% line coverage 😝
(Though my branch-coverage is stuck at 75%, and I can't seem to figure out why)
P.S. The articles, in case others feel inspired.
As for release-cutting: since this has zero user-visible benefit, I wouldn't mind if this is not included in the release for the Brother-John-Song (#88, #89), so please don't consider this urgent.