bytes2: Add tests for StringUnsafe and Reset methods

[glokta1]

Description

Add tests for StringUnsafe() and Reset() methods.

Part of #14931

Improves test coverage of package to 100%

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (c1f9c80) 47.26% compared to head (7db2f61) 47.25%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #14940      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   47.26%   47.25%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1138     1138              
  Lines      238842   238842              
==========================================
- Hits       112880   112863      -17     
- Misses     117368   117382      +14     
- Partials     8594     8597       +3     

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

[glokta1]

I'm not quite sure why the Codecov test is failing?

[mattlord]

Thank you, @glokta1 !

The overall project level coverage decrease is almost certainly due to intermediate commits between your PR branch's HEAD and the vitessio/vitess branch's HEAD. You can pull and merge (not rebase) the latest from vitessio/vitess/main into your PR branch to address that part.

That's also related to the failing codecov/project test (which is not blocking). I'm tweaking that behavior here so that it's informational only and those tests don't fail (perhaps we'll change that in the future): #14967

Once you merge in the latest from origin/main or whatever name you gave the vitessio/vitess remote and push that to your PR, then we should be good and we can get this approved and merged. Thanks again!

[glokta1]

Thanks Matt! Should be good to go now

[mattlord]

Thanks again for the contribution, @glokta1 ! ❤️

[mattlord]

Something still seems off with the project level results (we're still ramping up on use of codecov), but more importantly/relevantly we can see that the bytes2 package is now at 100%: https://app.codecov.io/gh/vitessio/vitess/pull/14940/tree/go/bytes2