On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 4:34 PM Beraldo Leal wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 08:32:53PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> > This tests most of protocol.py -- From a hacked up Coverage.py run, it's
> > at about 86%. There's a few error cases that aren't very well tested
> > yet, they're hard to induce ar
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 08:32:53PM -0400, John Snow wrote:
> This tests most of protocol.py -- From a hacked up Coverage.py run, it's
> at about 86%. There's a few error cases that aren't very well tested
> yet, they're hard to induce artificially so far. I'm working on it.
>
> Signed-off-by: John
This tests most of protocol.py -- From a hacked up Coverage.py run, it's
at about 86%. There's a few error cases that aren't very well tested
yet, they're hard to induce artificially so far. I'm working on it.
Signed-off-by: John Snow
---
python/tests/null_proto.py | 67 ++
python/tests/pro
