chore: Remove User.in_test_group?/2, which isn't called anywhere

[joshlarson]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

Coverage of commit de24b7f

Summary coverage rate:
  lines......: 94.5% (3015 of 3190 lines)
  functions..: 72.9% (1238 of 1699 functions)
  branches...: no data found

Files changed coverage rate:
                                                                  |Lines       |Functions  |Branches    
  Filename                                                        |Rate     Num|Rate    Num|Rate     Num
  ======================================================================================================
  lib/skate/settings/user.ex                                      | 100%     18| 100%     8|    -      0

Download coverage report

[github-actions]

Coverage of commit 19a2a72

Summary coverage rate:
  lines......: 94.7% (3022 of 3190 lines)
  functions..: 72.9% (1238 of 1699 functions)
  branches...: no data found

Files changed coverage rate:
                                                                  |Lines       |Functions  |Branches    
  Filename                                                        |Rate     Num|Rate    Num|Rate     Num
  ======================================================================================================
  lib/skate/settings/user.ex                                      | 100%     18| 100%     8|    -      0

Download coverage report

[lemald]

I have slightly mixed feelings on this because we're not using it at the moment but we'll probably use it again plenty of times, but thanks to git history and everything it will be very easy to resurrect this function whenever we need it.

[joshlarson]

@lemald I actually wonder if we might be able to use something like

user
|> User.all_test_group_names()
|> Enum.member?("whatever")

instead?

Which would then have an a priori guarantee that listing a user's test groups and checking whether a user is in a test group will never get out of sync with one another (I almost goofed on that when I was adding the override feature.

[joshlarson]

But if we think we're going to want to resurrect this, then I almost would rather not delete it.

[lemald]

@lemald I actually wonder if we might be able to use something like

user
|> User.all_test_group_names()
|> Enum.member?("whatever")

instead?

Which would then have an a priori guarantee that listing a user's test groups and checking whether a user is in a test group will never get out of sync with one another (I almost goofed on that when I was adding the override feature.

Yes, that's a good point, and it's simple enough logic for a user of the test group API to implement. I say go ahead and delete!