These methods definitely need explicit test coverage:
- getRevisionText - https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/391183/ (patch for review) & https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/391192 (patch for review)
- decompressRevisionText - https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/390399 (90%, just missing 1 warning)
- newKnownCurrent - https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/390412 (patch merged, 100% coverage)
Not quite as important, but should also be tested:
- userCan - https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/390425
- userCanBitfield - https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/390424 https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/391534/ (patches merged, 100% coverage)
- getRecentChange - https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/391194 (patch for review)
- getQueryInfo - https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/392215 (patch merged, 100% coverage)
- getArchiveQueryInfo - https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/392214 (patch merged, 100% coverage)
The following methods get tested only indirectly. This means that when they turn
into proxies for the new code, we don't know if they still do the right thing:
- insertOn - 76%
- compressRevisionText - https://doc.wikimedia.org/cover/mediawiki-core/includes/Revision.php.html#1473 (already covered @ 80%, just missing 2 warnings)
- newFromArchiveRow - 81%
- newNullRevision - 97%
- getContent - 60% (not got audience checks)
- getComment - 60% (not got audience checks)
- getUserText - 41% (not got audience checks)
- getUser - 60% (not got audience checks)
- isUnpatrolled - https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/390405 (patch merged, 100% coverage)