Add prival validation to stumpless_set_entry_prival() (modification for #478 issue)

[FujiwaraNaoto]

I added validation for prival in the stumpless_set_entry_prival() function. which is mentioned here

This is my very first OSS commit merge request. I would appreciate your review.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.64%. Comparing base (40b238e) to head (acb2061).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on latest.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           latest     #526      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.80%   90.64%   -0.17%     
==========================================
  Files          47       47              
  Lines        4570     4576       +6     
  Branches      608      609       +1     
==========================================
- Hits         4150     4148       -2     
- Misses        276      283       +7     
- Partials      144      145       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[goatshriek]

Overall this looks great, thank you for putting this together!

It looks like there is a missing locale header update, which caused the locale tests to fail.

The memory leak failures can likely be resolved by calling stumpless_destroy_entry_only on the entries created in the tests before stumpless_free_all.

[FujiwaraNaoto]

Thanks for your reply and concrete advice.
I have modified codes.
Could you review it again?

[goatshriek]

All that remains is one more line that is too long, and some re-ordering for alphabetic ordering within the locale headers.

[FujiwaraNaoto]

Thanks for your reply.
I have modified the codes , run ruby scripts/check_l10n.rb "include/private/config/locale/*-??.h".
and nothing is displayed, so tests will be passed.

I have to make some changes

[FujiwaraNaoto]

I have to make some changes

modified.

[goatshriek]

Excellent work, thank you for sticking with this!

[FujiwaraNaoto]

Thanks for merging my merge request.

By the way I don't understand why the results of codecov/project change before and after the commit acb2061

[goatshriek]

The codecov testing is based on the CI runs generating coverage reports, which include several different configurations. These all generate different coverage, which is good! That's why we have them.

Unfortunately, it can also mean that a coverage report that was generated halfway through the CI runs makes it look like coverage dropped when it didn't. If you're watching coverage before all of the runs are completed, you may see a report that makes it looked like it is lower, when in reality it just isn't done yet.

Some of the thread-safety tests are also non-deteriministic because of the nature of concurrency, which generates some false changes in coverage that aren't your fault. In this case that may be what's happening, since I see some journald test coverage changes, which is one of the test cases that is variable right now. That's obviously not the desired end state, I just haven't resolved it yet since it isn't critical.

All that to say, don't worry about any minor coverage changes for contributions! What's important is the coverage of your patch, which is covered 100%, and so you are good to go.