On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 9:53 AM Cyril Champier <cyril.champ...@doctolib.com> wrote: > > Adrian: > >> Are you really looking for a pseudo-random name? > > > No, the code I pasted was an existing production bug: the last_name should > have been unique, so the selected patient would always be the same. > This should have been detected in tests, but since the order was "almost > always the same", our test was green 99% of the time, so we discarded it as > flaky.
If the filter should return at most 1 row, why put a LIMIT in the first place? Even with a forced random() you won't get a failure every time, while asserting there's at most 1 row returned is guaranteed to fail?
