Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make uninitializedBegin test accurately test its intention #3244

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 11, 2023

Conversation

mhutchinson
Copy link
Contributor

This was previously creating and initializing a tree, and then testing what happened if you created a transaction on a tree ID that definitely didn't exist. What it was trying to test was something different, which is the case where a tree had been created/defined, but was not initialized with an empty log root yet. The test now reflects that. This allows #3201 to avoid a nil check for something that otherwise will be guaranteed to exist.

This was previously creating and initializing a tree, and then testing what happened if you created a transaction on a tree ID that definitely didn't exist. What it was trying to test was something different, which is the case where a tree had been created/defined, but was not initialized with an empty log root yet. The test now reflects that. This allows google#3201 to avoid a nil check for something that otherwise will be guaranteed to exist.
@mhutchinson mhutchinson requested a review from a team as a code owner December 11, 2023 12:20
@mhutchinson mhutchinson merged commit 679237e into google:master Dec 11, 2023
10 checks passed
@mhutchinson mhutchinson deleted the betterNotInitTest branch December 11, 2023 12:36
mhutchinson added a commit to mhutchinson/trillian that referenced this pull request Dec 11, 2023
Test was updated in google#3244 to test the correct behaviour, which means that we don't need to worry here about whether the tree exists or not.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants