What kind of tests would this break? Aside from the advice on the page itself (which, iirc, is new anyway), i'm wondering why any testing would actually involve the contents of design of the page. Just a weird 'sanity' check?
As an example, depending on "man -w" not outputting anything to stderr: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/405783/why-does-man...
We removed the version and a few customers complained we broke their stuff.
Our back clapping was interrupted by an angry customer phone call. One of our customers had gotten access to our internal schema and had a massive reporting setup in Access solving most of his needs.
I ended up converting his reports using some internal tools we had. Customers will grab anything to give them.
[The caliber and depth of his reports were such I wish we would have bought them instead of making me spend months building out our own reports.]
Learning from customers is some of the best learning you can do. :)
This is probably an even more important principle in the age of LLMs.
That's an interesting case. Did you consider this a correct result?
On one hand, <foo@example.com> is a valid hypothetical address that can be used strictly in documentation. It is also syntactically valid, which is the best kind of valid. However, <foo@example.com> (and all its permutations) is an obviously invalid actual address if you're trying to send email to it, or manipulate it in any real way on the Internet.
It's a good sanity check, but quite pedantic. I can understand if you are validating some public input form, where people are likely to put fake email addresses, and you don't want someone knowingly filling in <blah@example.com> because you also know, a priori it's a fake, and it will waste your time validating or trying to send to it.