On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM Shubham Khanna
<khannashubham1197@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > #13. Unanswered question "How are tests expecting this even passing?".
> > Was a reason identified? IOW, how can we be sure the latest tests
> > don't have a similar problem?
> >
>
> In the v4-0001 patch [1], the tests were mistakenly using
> 'command_fails' instead of 'command_fails_like' to verify failed test
> cases. Since 'command_fails' only checks for a non-zero exit code and
> not specific error messages, the tests were passing even when the
> expected errors were not being triggered correctly.
> To address this, I have updated the patch to use 'command_fails_like',
> ensuring that the test cases now explicitly verify the correct failure
> messages.
>
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for sharing the reason. So in fact, it
was a valid concern because the v5 was still carrying over the same
flaw from v4... Anyway, it is good to know it is fixed now in v6.
=====
Some general comments for the patch v6-0001:
Do you need to test every possible bad option combination? It may be
fine because the error will be immediately raised so I expect the
execution overhead to be ~zero.
BTW, your bad option combination tests are only using --all-databases
*after* the other options. Maybe you should mix it up a bit, sometimes
putting it *before* the others as well, because rearranging will cause
different errors.
Everything else now looks good to me.
======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
