Re: Default ordering option

From: "Peter J(dot) Holzer" <hjp-pgsql(at)hjp(dot)at>
To: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Default ordering option
Date: 2019-07-27 17:18:53
Message-ID: 20190727171853.h3wmvmubrpbft3em@hjp.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 2019-07-26 09:52:52 +0200, Cyril Champier wrote:
> 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.
>
> Fuzzy testing could be an option, but this would go too far, as for
> Peter extension suggestion. We have huge existing codebase with more
> than 10K tests, and I do not want to modify our whole testing
> strategy.
>
> Meanwhile, I went for an ORM patch (ActiveRecord) and forbid usages
> that can workaround it.

Another idea:

How do ypu prepare your test data? Do you have a (possibly large) test
database or do you populate a test database with test-specific data in a
fixture?

If you do the latter, you might be able insert the data in random order.

hp

--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | we build much bigger, better disasters now
|_|_) | | because we have much more sophisticated
| | | hjp(at)hjp(dot)at | management tools.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Ross Anderson <https://www.edge.org/>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-07-27 20:52:43 Re: Why does backend send buffer size hardcoded at 8KB?
Previous Message Arya F 2019-07-27 16:55:53 Re: Hardware for writing/updating 12,000,000 rows per hour