> I simply don't understand how we can be getting any meaningful test
> coverage out of those cases. I mean, if we want to check every bit of
> syntax that could lead to a syntax error, we could probably come up
> with a near-infinite number of test cases:
I think that it would be enough to check for expected
keywords/identifier/stuff whether the syntax error reported make sense.
Basically the parser reports the first found inconsistency.
1. CREAT TABLE foo (x int); 2. CREATE TABL foo (x int); 3. CREATER TABLE foo (x int); -- same as 1 4. CREATE TABLES
foo(x int); -- same as 2 5. CREATE CREATE TABLE foo (x int); -- hmmm. 6. CREATE TABLE foo [x int); 7. CREATE TABLE foo
(xint]; 8. CREATE TABLE foo [x int]; -- same as 6 & 7 9. CREATE TABLE (x int); A. CREATE foo (x int); -- same as 2
This level of testing can be more or less linear in the number of token.
--
Fabien.
