danny0405 commented on pull request #2238: URL: https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2238#issuecomment-722216992
> > RexProgramTest already does that. > > It has a very limited set of checks. Do you have an exhaustive check? I do not see that, so you can't claim `RexProgramTest` covers your changes. > > > Although some stacktrace throws from 3457 code, that does not mean 3457's code is wrong > > The test case was added right after 3457 was merged. The test worked OK before 3754, and it started to fail after 3457. I would say it is very likely the test case failure is caused by 3457. > > > Can we not make the fuzzer testing a random one ? It is hard to debug and figure out where is wrong. > > First of all, `reproducerFor3457` is a static test case, with no randomization at all. > Then, the removal of random from fuzzer would ruin the purpose of the test: it randomizes input data, so it explores the search space better. As it fails, it prints **exact source code that re-creates the problematic expression**. > You copy-paste it to a separate test method and that that is it. That was the way I created `reproducerFor3457`. > An alternative option is to put the seed into `singleFuzzyTest`. Then you have a single test which you could. > > Have you tried that? Could you clarify what is the exact issue you have with reproducing/debugging the issues? I don't want to argue something, please review if you have time https://github.com/apache/calcite/pull/2246/files. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
