On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 10:33 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 10:27:18AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > +1 and the above statement looks good. Apart from that I have one more
> > suggestion that I earlier made: have the function produce the error
> > when no permissions were granted (just to ensure we have the error
> > message covered) including has_function_privilege() case.
>
> has_function_privilege() makes sure of the same thing, so I think that
> what Jeff has done for this part is just but fine. There is no need
> for more duplication in the tests.
Fair enough.
Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
