Skip to content

Conversation

@jbj
Copy link
Contributor

@jbj jbj commented Jan 11, 2019

This test was intended to catch regressions in the CFG, but it looks like it's just catching insignificant extractor changes. The test has started failing after some recent extractor changes, but I have no way to pinpoint the failure and understand whether it's a problem or not, so I think it's better to delete this test.

The remaining tests check whether the QL-based CFG generates the same graph as the extractor-based CFG. Furthermore, the successor-tests check that the extractor-based CFG works as intended.

This test was intended to catch regressions in the CFG, but it looks
like it's just catching insignificant extractor changes. The test has
started failing after some recent extractor changes, but I have no way
to pinpoint the failure and understand whether it's a problem or not, so
I think it's better to delete this test.

The remaining tests check whether the QL-based CFG generates the same
graph as the extractor-based CFG. Furthermore, the `successor-tests`
check that the extractor-based CFG works as intended.
@rdmarsh2 rdmarsh2 merged commit eabc674 into github:master Jan 11, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants