Rename leeway tests after the scenario they cover - #43
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The old names described a direction that reads backwards. Setting the clock to `sentAtMs + 5min` puts the receipt time after the signed timestamp — the webhook arrived late — but that test was named for the "future" leeway window, and its error-case twin read "the timestamp is outside the future leeway window" while firing on a timestamp in the past. Naming them after the scenario drops the frame of reference entirely, so there's nothing left to get backwards. The assertions are unchanged. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The four timestamp leeway tests named a direction that reads backwards. Setting the clock to
sentAtMs + 5minputs the receipt time after the signed timestamp — so the webhook arrived late — but that test was named for the "future" leeway window. Its error-case twin read "if the timestamp is outside the future leeway window" while firing on a timestamp five minutes in the past.Naming them after the scenario instead drops the frame of reference entirely, so there's nothing left to get backwards. The assertions are unchanged, and "exactly" stays on the two accept cases to keep the signal that they're boundary tests.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code