Add e2e scenarios as named gate in ck-commit #40
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "feat/040-add-e2e-scenarios-as-named-gate-in-ck-commit"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Add e2e scenarios as named gate in ck-commit
Along the way:
Touches 9 files:
.claude/skills/ck-commit.md,.gitignore,Cargo.lock,ckeditor-files-review.md,ckeditor-files.md,ckeditor/Cargo.tomland 3 more.A clear improvement. The change in
ckeditor/src/files_coordinator.rsis the part I would have argued for.@ -655,0 +813,4 @@}#[test]fn consume_self_write_matches_recorded_hash_and_removes_entry() {consume_self_write_matches_recorded_hash_and_removes_entryreads, decides and writes in one function. The deciding part is the piece I would want to test on its own. Worth splitting?@ -18,4 +18,5 @@ mod scenarios {pub mod keystrokes_reach_composed_app;pub mod move_file_via_tree;pub mod open_file_via_tree_keys;pub mod self_write_then_external_write_surfaces;I had to read
self_write_then_external_write_surfacestwice. Nothing wrong with it, but one line of comment would save the next person the second read.@ -0,0 +35,4 @@#[test]fn scenario_self_write_then_external_write_surfaces() {let dir = tempfile::tempdir().unwrap();dirunwraps here. If this is reachable from user input it is a panic in front of a person rather than an error they can read. Is it provably there at this point, or should it carry a??Split. The decision in
consume_self_write_matches_recorded_hash_and_removes_entryis a pure function now, with its own tests inckeditor/src/files_coordinator.rs.It is reachable. The function in
ckeditor/tests/scenarios/self_write_then_external_write_surfaces.rsreturns a Result now and the caller reports it, so the unwrap ondiris gone.Comment added on
self_write_then_external_write_surfacesinckeditor/tests/scenarios.rs. It was obvious when I wrote it and it will not be in a month.