request.cpp coverage

[cmazakas]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 86.23%. Comparing base (e1b4aa1) to head (e0131a6).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop      #64      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    85.45%   86.23%   +0.77%     
===========================================
  Files           77       77              
  Lines         4269     4271       +2     
===========================================
+ Hits          3648     3683      +35     
+ Misses         621      588      -33     

Files	Coverage Δ
src/detail/header.cpp	94.01% <100.00%> (ø)
src/request.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (+25.00%)	⬆️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e1b4aa1...e0131a6. Read the comment docs.

[cppalliance-bot]

GCOVR code coverage report https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/gcovr/index.html
LCOV code coverage report https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/genhtml/index.html
Coverage Diff https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/gcovr/coverage_diff.txt

[cppalliance-bot]

GCOVR code coverage report https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/gcovr/index.html
LCOV code coverage report https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/genhtml/index.html
Coverage Diff https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/gcovr/coverage_diff.txt

[cppalliance-bot]

GCOVR code coverage report https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/gcovr/index.html
LCOV code coverage report https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/genhtml/index.html
Coverage Diff https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/gcovr/coverage_diff.txt

[cppalliance-bot]

GCOVR code coverage report https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/gcovr/index.html
LCOV code coverage report https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/genhtml/index.html
Coverage Diff https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/gcovr/coverage_diff.txt

[vinniefalco]

"Expectations" is capitalized but isn't a well-known field name

[cppalliance-bot]

GCOVR code coverage report https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/gcovr/index.html
LCOV code coverage report https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/genhtml/index.html
Coverage Diff https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/gcovr/coverage_diff.txt

[vinniefalco]

Could this be

raw_erase_n( field::expect, h_.md.expect.count  );

instead?

[cmazakas]

This required a little of massaging of the metadata but I made it work and I think it's a bit cleaner than before.

[cppalliance-bot]

GCOVR code coverage report https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/gcovr/index.html
LCOV code coverage report https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/genhtml/index.html
Coverage Diff https://64.http-proto.prtest.cppalliance.org/gcovr/coverage_diff.txt

[vinniefalco]

Pull request looks good to merge.

When writing these tests you might find it helpful to author some utility functions. For example this:

BOOST_TEST( ! req.metadata().expect.ec.failed() );
BOOST_TEST( req.metadata().expect.is_100_continue );
BOOST_TEST_EQ( req.count("Expect"), 1 );

might be expressed as

ok( req, true, 1 );

and

BOOST_TEST( req.metadata().expect.ec.failed() );
BOOST_TEST_EQ( req.count("Expect"), 2 );

might be expressed as

bad( req, 2 );