Over ambitious tests are a concern. They try to cover too much territory assume a lot of happy path and setup state and skip over a lot of the internals. Not typically worth the effort to maintain. Also any test that doesn't cover the risks that are truly at the heart of the problems with changing software.
I'm liking what you said but having a hard time identifying indicators.
Happy path testing and missing internal logic suggests to me insufficient testing and not bad tests doing harm.
I think tests that don't cover the heart of changing software is likely to surface by the indicator in my article, the explanation and inputs would change more frequently.
I think that what I mean to say is that a test could convey a false level of security and cause harm in that way.
I think this is very dependent on how your software is written. Back end servers can be written in ways that are very testable. I've mostly seen UI automation tests as the ones that can convey incorrect levels of correctness.
I agree backends can also be written in convoluted ways as well.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.