From a83a9b2a2a5bb5c0e41165c7707dcc5452aa8c27 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ed Page Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:56:00 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] fix: Typo --- .../2024-12-13-this-development-cycle-in-cargo-1.84.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/posts/inside-rust/2024-12-13-this-development-cycle-in-cargo-1.84.md b/posts/inside-rust/2024-12-13-this-development-cycle-in-cargo-1.84.md index 523603ffd..0f3bc5224 100644 --- a/posts/inside-rust/2024-12-13-this-development-cycle-in-cargo-1.84.md +++ b/posts/inside-rust/2024-12-13-this-development-cycle-in-cargo-1.84.md @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ However, we missed removing an assertion and epage removed it in [#14759](https: [#14781](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/14781) and [#14785](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/14785) saw us migrate the last of our "unordered lines" assertion tests. [#14785](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/14785) took some investigation to figure out the best way to migrate. -Cargo's custom assertions redacted fewwer values and allowed a test author to ignore a value redaction by using the raw value in the expected result. +Cargo's custom assertions redacted fewer values and allowed a test author to ignore a value redaction by using the raw value in the expected result. `snapbox` applies redactions earlier in the process, requiring them to always be used. This made it so Cargo would lose test coverage in switching to snapbox as we wouldn't be verifying as much of `cargo`s output. However, in consulting with the test author, coverage of those redacted values was not intended by them, bypassing this problem for now.