test(config): pin the exact cache_ttl rejection messages - #76
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes the one open Low from the pre-release Codex review.
The rejection message was asserted only by substrings, so punctuation, ordering and — critically — whether
DefaultCacheTTLis genuinely interpolated rather than hardcoded could all drift silently.Adds
TestParseCacheTTL_RejectionMessagesAreExact, comparing the wholeerr.Error()against a literal built fromDefaultCacheTTL.String().Mutation-verified: changing "remove the setting to use the default" to "...to use default" fails 2 of 2 subtests; reverting passes. The existing substring cases are kept — they document intent, this pins the text.
Deliberately brittle, and that is the point: this string is the user's only instruction for repairing the config by hand, and it has already been wrong once (it named
--refresh, a flag three cache-consuming commands do not have).