Skip to content

Marshaling out#11

Open
hugelgupf wants to merge 9 commits into
mainfrom
out
Open

Marshaling out#11
hugelgupf wants to merge 9 commits into
mainfrom
out

Conversation

@hugelgupf

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

No description provided.

Co-authored-by: Steven Hsieh <stevenhsieh@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <chrisko@google.com>
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Mar 25, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 80.26316% with 30 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.20%. Comparing base (1465ce6) to head (764463f).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
dmidecode/struct_parser.go 89.18% 5 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
dmidecode/type3_chassis_information.go 73.33% 2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
dmidecode/type0_bios_information.go 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
dmidecode/type17_memory_device.go 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
dmidecode/type1_system_information.go 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
dmidecode/type2_baseboard_information.go 80.00% 1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
dmidecode/type38_ipmi_device_information.go 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
dmidecode/type43_tpm_device.go 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
dmidecode/type4_processor_information.go 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
dmidecode/type7_cache_information.go 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
... and 1 more
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #11      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   85.73%   85.20%   -0.54%     
==========================================
  Files          24       24              
  Lines        1514     1649     +135     
==========================================
+ Hits         1298     1405     +107     
- Misses        151      174      +23     
- Partials       65       70       +5     
Flag Coverage Δ
amd64-1.21.x 85.20% <80.26%> (-0.54%) ⬇️
amd64-1.22.x 85.20% <80.26%> (-0.54%) ⬇️
arm-1.21.x ?
arm-1.22.x ?
arm64-1.21.x ?
arm64-1.22.x ?
riscv64-1.21.x ?
riscv64-1.22.x ?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <chrisko@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <chrisko@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <chrisko@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <chrisko@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <chrisko@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <chrisko@google.com>
We don't know how to read any of that right now anyway.

Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <chrisko@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <chrisko@google.com>
t := smbios.Table{
Header: smbios.Header{
Type: val.Typ(),
Handle: handle,

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why we have to pass in handle when we can directly obtain that from val.Handle?

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The Length of full info Type 1 table should be (4 + 4 + 16 + 3) -> 27.
This incorrect number won't fail the test but create new test failure while copying these values for the new test.

Comment thread table_test.go
t.Run(tt.name, func(t *testing.T) {
got, err := tt.table.MarshalBinary()
if err != nil {
t.Errorf("MarshalBinary returned error: %v", err)

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would it be better to use t.Fatalf? since it doesn't make sense to proceed if function returns error.

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