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
os/Chown #4213
base: dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
os/Chown #4213
Conversation
Signed-off-by: leongross <leon.gross@9elements.com>
To design meaningful test cases for
The problem I see with solution 2 is that the implementation of I would appreciate your input on that @rminnich EDIT: Maybe I am mistaken but as I see it, |
Signed-off-by: leongross <leon.gross@9elements.com>
@deadprogram do you have an opinion on that? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it's fine to keep this lightly tested, for example by checking that the syscall returns an expected permission error (or even just "file not found" - it also means the call works at least somewhat).
Yes it would be great to be able to test everything, but that's very hard to do for things like this and you'll end up putting a lot of effort into what's essentially just a wrapper for a libc function.
Signed-off-by: leongross <leon.gross@9elements.com>
cbcb173
to
71d571e
Compare
Signed-off-by: leongross <leon.gross@9elements.com>
Add
os.Chown()