Øystein Grøvlen wrote:
> One request for change.
> 1. If it is a requirement that duplicate dbs should give error, I
> think the test needs to fail if it does not. Otherwise we would
> not detect regressions. Hence, I think this should be change to
> expect an error:
> > +--error 0, ER_NONUNIQ_DB
> > +BACKUP DATABASE bup_default, bup_default TO "bup_default1.bak";
The fact that correct error is given is tested in backup_errors test. Inside
backup test, I only set-up a trap for a faulty server as it was before this patch.
> I do not really see the point in adding tests for something that
> should not work in case it starts working. It complicates the test to
> handle something that may never be needed.
This breaks my heart because I included this test scenario in expectation of
your request for something along these lines ;) But if you don't see the point
of such test, then I'm fine with leaving backup test unchanged and using only
the backup_errors test. Do you concur?