On Oct 3 2025, at 4:25 am, Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 3 Oct 2025, at 01:36, David Rowley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 at 01:33, Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Another nitpick would be to remove the test for NULL in >>> test_bms_make_singleton >>> since that is a STRICT function, making the test for NULL >>> superfluous code: >> >> I see test_random_operations() is also strict. Is it worth getting rid >> of the SQL NULL checks on the inputs there too? Aka, the attached. > > Indeed, but reading the code I wonder if STRICT was a mistake and the > intention > was to allow NULL input? Yes, it was an oversight after I re-worked the random function. > That being said, the function is never called with > NULL so that's mostly academic thinking. +1 for removing the NULL > checks and simplifying the code. I agree, and thank you both for the attention to detail and interest in this test suite. > > -- > Daniel Gustafsson best. -greg
