Remove language doc ztests #4422
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
@philrz: Before merging this, let's verify that it doesn't reduce coverage. |
nwt
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2024
|
@philrz: Let's merge this. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
tl;dr - These tests are no longer needed and can be removed.
Details - These were originally added in #2901 after several incidents where non-mdtest-protected examples in the docs kept breaking and we had to catch/fix them manually. However, in the time since they were added, the examples they were protecting disappeared during a docs overhaul that brought language intro out of the top-level
docs/language/README.mdand intodocs/language/overview.mdwith most of the content/examples being redone at that time. I also see that in the ~1.5 years since the ztests were added, per the commit log, nobody has ever had to make changes to them, so it seems we've gotten better about not breaking the fundamentals. If we want ideal coverage, perhaps at some point we can take on #2908.