comment
This commit is contained in:
parent
55bf1c6896
commit
ea445260ba
1 changed files with 19 additions and 0 deletions
|
@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
|
||||||
|
[[!comment format=mdwn
|
||||||
|
username="joey"
|
||||||
|
subject="""comment 1"""
|
||||||
|
date="2022-08-24T17:05:50Z"
|
||||||
|
content="""
|
||||||
|
Like the man page for this command says, it's best to make a new remote for
|
||||||
|
testing purposes, not use a production one.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
I think that a simple improvement to it would be for it to generate the
|
||||||
|
same test keys every time. Then if it failed once or was interrupted or
|
||||||
|
the remote was buggy, once that got fixed the same command could be run
|
||||||
|
again, and would clean up the test keys that were earlier stored on the
|
||||||
|
remote.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It's generating random data and a key from that,
|
||||||
|
but a predictable random data would not impair the test really.
|
||||||
|
Although testExportTree currently starts with a test that might fail
|
||||||
|
if the key is already present in the remote.
|
||||||
|
"""]]
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue