[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10266?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14742467#comment-14742467
]
Benedict commented on CASSANDRA-10266:
--------------------------------------
Is there any chance we could introduce some randomness to this test? I know
most of the codebase takes this approach of defining a specific test, but I'd
like to start pushing us in the direction of randomised testing as standard,
especially for critical pieces of infrastructure like this. Are you confident
that all possible combinations are explored? Ironically, the fact that you
caught a bug (which is fantastic, btw) makes me more inclined to request this,
as it looks like it was dependent on selecting a specific relationship, and
there may be others we do not think to select.
We could instead generate two (or more) random Rows, and confirm that all of
the differences are reported (and no more), and just run this many times (or a
handful, and have a {{LongTest}} equivalent that just runs the same for much
longer). It would also mean the only difference between each of the testEmpty\*
etc are just configuration, so make the tests easier to modify. This could most
likely be reused again for any testing of partition-wide behaviours. WDYT?
> Introduce direct unit test coverage for Rows
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-10266
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10266
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core
> Reporter: Benedict
> Assignee: Blake Eggleston
> Fix For: 3.0.0 rc1
>
>
> As with much of the codebase, we have no direct unit test coverage for
> {{Rows}}, and we should remedy this given how central it is to behaviour.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
