Skip to content

test(project): guard protocol class member order (#2490) - #2541

Open
JarryShaw wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
test/2490-member-order-guard
Open

JarryShaw wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
test/2490-member-order-guard

Conversation

@JarryShaw

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

What is the purpose of your pull request?

  • fix — corrects a defect
  • feat — adds a feature
  • perf — changes performance, not behaviour
  • refactor — changes neither behaviour nor performance
  • test — tests only
  • docs — documentation only
  • ci — workflows or build tooling
  • release — bumps the version or rolls up a distribution
  • chore — anything else
  • const — regenerates constant or registry tables, members keeping their numeric values

Description of your pull request and other information

Part of #2490. Merge after #2522, #2523, #2538 and #2539. Its exception table matches main once all four reorders are in, so it fails on plain main by design until then.

- protocol-member-order.rst: cite #2490 for the ruling; a registry fallback
  read()/make() names is a specific reader; specific sets open with the
  registry default; every helper read(), make() and the registries do not
  reach goes last (d); the guard noted.
- tests/project: audit every protocol class for group order, _make_data()
  first, reader before maker and rule b; stale or unknown exceptions fail.

Merge after #2522, #2523 and the held link and misc/schema/protocol reorders:
the table matches main with all four merged, and plain main fails.
@JarryShaw JarryShaw added test Pull requests that add or correct tests (test: subject prefix) review: good-to-go Cross-review at the current head says ready; CI state is separate labels Nov 1, 2026
@JarryShaw

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner Author

Cross-review (Sonnet) at 0142851fc: GOOD TO GO. The guard passes once the four #2490 reorders are merged, and fails on plain main as intended. The page text matches the owner's #2490 rulings, and each exception entry names a real member. The DTLS [data] entry is coupled to #2528: whichever of the two merges second deletes it.

@JarryShaw JarryShaw added the review: good-to-go Cross-review at the current head says ready; CI state is separate label Nov 1, 2026
@JarryShaw JarryShaw moved this to In review in PyPCAPKit Nov 1, 2026
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Nov 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Coverage: 93.94% (unit tier, Python 3.15, 0142851fc, Unit Tests run failure)

Package Statements Missed Branches Partial Cover
pcapkit (top level) 104 4 20 2 95.16%
pcapkit/const 20087 144 2710 125 98.78%
pcapkit/corekit 2605 74 818 37 96.52%
pcapkit/dumpkit 281 3 100 3 98.43%
pcapkit/foundation 3194 27 1112 31 98.65%
pcapkit/interface 138 4 52 3 96.32%
pcapkit/protocols 19906 213 5236 207 98.32%
pcapkit/toolkit 924 36 334 10 95.55%
pcapkit/utilities 502 7 144 5 98.14%
pcapkit/vendor 5009 2222 1148 182 52.31%

Per-file detail: the coverage-html artifact of this run.

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

review: good-to-go Cross-review at the current head says ready; CI state is separate test Pull requests that add or correct tests (test: subject prefix)

Projects

Status: In review

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant