Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: -0.15 ⚠️

Comparison is base (51697d2) 47.18% compared to head (e60c8a4) 47.04%.

❗ Current head e60c8a4 differs from pull request most recent head 9578005. Consider uploading reports for the commit 9578005 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #822      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   47.18%   47.04%   -0.15%     
==========================================
  Files          76       76              
  Lines        7845     7858      +13     
==========================================
- Hits         3702     3697       -5     
- Misses       3643     3670      +27     
+ Partials      500      491       -9     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

⏱️ Benchmark results

• DefaultConcurrencyDFS-2 resources/s: 10,680
• DefaultConcurrencyRoundRobin-2 resources/s: 12,465
• Glob-2 ns/op: 218
• TablesWithChildrenDFS-2 resources/s: 25,373
• TablesWithChildrenRoundRobin-2 resources/s: 23,949
• TablesWithRateLimitingDFS-2 resources/s: 28.05
• TablesWithRateLimitingRoundRobin-2 resources/s: 804.7
• BufferedScanner-2 ns/op: 10.78
• LogReader-2 ns/op: 32.78

const (
	MigrateModeSafe MigrateMode = iota
	MigrateModeForced
)

How is it incorrect? Zero value defaults to safe. Maybe not 'explicit', but shouldn't be incorrect?

Yeah, I think it's just not explicit, but explicit is better than implicit I think, so we may want to just update the title of this PR if it's not fixing anything in reality.

const (
	MigrateModeSafe MigrateMode = iota
	MigrateModeForced
)

How is it incorrect? Zero value defaults to safe. Maybe not 'explicit', but shouldn't be incorrect?

I think it might be due to a race where the variable was changed in another test. but not sure at this stage.