docs(readme): one file-type table, not two
`### Binary extraction` carried its own six-row Format/Reader/Evidence table over the same rows the pinned table now holds. It was true when written and reachable by exactly the failure this module exists for: three evidence classes copied into prose no test reads. That section now points at the pinned table and keeps its prose about the extra. A fifth assertion in `tests/test_docs_promises.py` holds the duplicate gone. Known-positive: the same query finds 8 table lines in that section on the previous commit, so it can go red. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
2d3c2707c7
commit
d310dbb34e
3 changed files with 26 additions and 11 deletions
|
|
@ -193,3 +193,17 @@ def test_the_readme_opening_does_not_name_five_of_thirteen() -> None:
|
|||
every = set(_CORE_EXTRACTORS) | set(_OPTIONAL_EXTRACTORS)
|
||||
named = {s for s in every if re.search(rf"\b{s.lstrip('.')}\b", intro, re.IGNORECASE)}
|
||||
assert named == every, f"the opening names {sorted(named)}, not all of {sorted(every)}"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def test_the_readme_carries_only_one_file_type_table() -> None:
|
||||
"""A second table over the same rows is a copy nothing checks.
|
||||
|
||||
`### Binary extraction` carried its own six-row Format/Reader/Evidence
|
||||
table until 2026-09-12. It was true when written, and it was reachable by
|
||||
exactly the failure this module exists for: an evidence class copied into
|
||||
prose that no test reads. Its rows now live in the pinned table alone.
|
||||
"""
|
||||
text = README.read_text(encoding="utf-8")
|
||||
section = text.split("### Binary extraction", 1)[1].split("\n## ", 1)[0]
|
||||
rows = [line for line in section.splitlines() if line.strip().startswith("|")]
|
||||
assert not rows, f"a second file-type table is back under Binary extraction: {rows}"
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue