Comment 5 for bug 1918340

Dear All,

Regardless of the interest in covering fault injection cases or not, I must emphasize that the point of this message is solely to improve the current battery of tests - which clearly are not covering a few situations. This is regardless of the usefulness of the fault injection process itself (that is applied to systems where reliability is of utmost concern), which usually includes different kinds of faults that may represent typical developer mistakes (e.g., setting a constant with an incorrect value is a well-known case, but just an example among many others, like calling functions with wrong parameters, having extraneous code in an if instruction, etc). Depending on the goals, sometimes even faults that are not directly related with programmers actions are injected, e.g., bit-flips in memory.

Anyway, I think the point is not to discuss the merits of fault injection. Let me try to summarise:
- If you wish to keep the current tests from not covering certain cases they should be kept as is. In case you are interested in improving the current tests, they should be augmented preferably in the direction I am pointing out (the options are obviously immense, but the ones identified are based on the analysis of previous mistakes made by developers and reported on launchpad).

Best regards,
Henrique