Neutral example holder names in the tests

[flyingrobots]

Two session names from the first downstream project were used as example holders. Public examples carry no client context.

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: 1b120451-18f8-4a9d-9d60-f9d76568dfa6

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between f0b4c26 and cb1589c.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• test/test.sh

---

📝 Summary

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Updated test scenarios to use clearer holder names while preserving existing lock, conflict, re-claim, and expiry behavior checks.
  • No changes to expected exit codes, references, or JSON output.

Walkthrough

The test script replaces placeholder holder identifiers with alice and bob across claim, check, list, conflict, re-claim, and expiry scenarios. Existing exit-code, reference-count, expiry, eviction, and JSON behavior checks remain unchanged.

Changes

Readable holder names in tests

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Holder names across test scenarios test/test.sh	The scenarios use alice and bob instead of luma-63 and luma-aa. Existing behavior assertions remain unchanged.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes

Change: Other

✨ Finishing Touches

📝 Generate docstrings

• Create stacked PR
• Commit on current branch

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{A rabbit checks each lock in line
Alice and Bob now read just fine
Claims and checks keep pace
Expiry leaves no trace
The tests still guard each place}

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}