[racket-dev] [plt] Push #29023: master branch updated

> I just don't think the additional line in that error message is very
> helpful, and it's already a long and scary error message.

Not that anyone asked for my opinion, but I agree.

Similarly, I wouldn't find it helpful if rackunit failure messages
added a caveat, "assuming the unit test isn't buggy".

I imagine most people already consider the provenance of the contract
or test, and prioritize. If it's in a standard or "respect-worthy"
library, _possibly_ it's buggy but more likely the other code is.
Whereas if I wrote the contract or test, it's as suspect as that which
it claims to validate.

Have many people not approached it that way, and it's caused problems?