Skip to content

Conversation

jeltz
Copy link
Collaborator

@jeltz jeltz commented Aug 19, 2025

We used to assume that the only errors which could happen were ones which set the errno, but that is not the case. We also want to give nice output on non-zero return values and if the process was killed by a signal.

We used to assume that the only errors which could happen were ones
which set the errno, but that is not the case. We also want to give nice
output on non-zero return values and if the process was killed by a
signal.
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 33.33333% with 12 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 82.14%. Comparing base (80e0bb0) to head (f1adb81).

❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (82.14%) is below the target coverage (90.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           TDE_REL_17_STABLE     #546      +/-   ##
=====================================================
- Coverage              82.40%   82.14%   -0.27%     
=====================================================
  Files                     25       25              
  Lines                   3229     3243      +14     
  Branches                 510      512       +2     
=====================================================
+ Hits                    2661     2664       +3     
- Misses                   457      467      +10     
- Partials                 111      112       +1     
Components Coverage Δ
access 84.37% <ø> (ø)
catalog 87.65% <ø> (ø)
common 77.77% <ø> (ø)
encryption 72.97% <ø> (ø)
keyring 73.21% <ø> (ø)
src 94.18% <ø> (ø)
smgr 96.53% <ø> (ø)
transam ∅ <ø> (∅)
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Collaborator

@AndersAstrand AndersAstrand left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks correct to me. but maybe we should have tests that just exercise these code paths so there isn't a mistakes with the macros or something?

Should be quite easy to test since the test suite would have full control over what command to execute.

@jeltz jeltz merged commit 415cb8d into percona:TDE_REL_17_STABLE Aug 19, 2025
19 checks passed
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.

3 participants