Hi, On 2023-02-14 11:38:06 +1100, Peter Smith wrote: > No, nothing specific in mind. But maybe like these: > - tests for causing obscure errors that would never otherwise be > reached without something deliberately designed to fail a certain way
I think there's some cases around this that could be usefu, but also a lot that wouldn't. > - tests for trivial user errors apparently deemed not worth bloating > the regression tests with -- e.g. many errorConflictingDefElem not > being called [1]. I don't think it's worth adding a tests for all of these. The likelihood of catching a problem seems quite small. > - timing-related or error tests where some long (multi-second) delay > is a necessary part of the setup. IME that's almost always a sign that the test wouldn't be stable anyway. Greetings, Andres Freund
