chore: Use test_util feature to hide internal public APIs - #25678
2010YOUY01 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
| 2. Internal utilities, such as operator APIs required by the optimizer to inspect | ||
| or rewrite execution plans across crate boundaries. | ||
|
|
||
| Note: Exposing internal APIs for tests or microbenchmarks is not recommended, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is somewhat subjective, I think it's not a good idea to test or benchmark against implementation details overall. I'm not so sure if there are any special cases that require this pattern.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #25678 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 82.45% 82.49% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 1140 1140
Lines 436434 437763 +1329
Branches 436434 437763 +1329
==========================================
+ Hits 359840 361124 +1284
- Misses 54840 54842 +2
- Partials 21754 21797 +43 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
Thank you for opening this pull request! Reviewer note: cargo-semver-checks reported the current version number is not SemVer-compatible with the changes in this pull request (compared against the base branch). Details |
|
The feature approach seem hard to maintain, I'd go for |
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
Follow-up for #25495
See PR diff in
api_health.mdfor rationaleWhat changes are included in this PR?
#[doc(hidden)]andtest_utilfeature)What is the testing strategy for this PR?
Are there any user-facing changes?