def test_combined_field_annotations():
    """
    This test is included to document the fact that `Field` and `field` can be used together.
    That said, if you mix them like this, there is a good chance you'll run into surprising behavior/bugs.

    (E.g., `x: Annotated[int, Field(gt=1, validate_default=True)] = field(default=0)` doesn't cause an error)

    I would generally advise against doing this, and if we do change the behavior in the future to somehow merge
    pydantic.FieldInfo and dataclasses.Field in a way that changes runtime behavior for existing code, I would probably
    consider it a bugfix rather than a breaking change.
    """

    @pydantic.dataclasses.dataclass
    class Model:
        x: Annotated[int, Field(gt=1)] = dataclasses.field(default=1)

    assert Model().x == 1

    with pytest.raises(ValidationError) as exc_info:
        Model(x=0)
    assert exc_info.value.errors(include_url=False) == [
        {
            'ctx': {'gt': 1},
            'input': 0,
            'loc': ('x',),
            'msg': 'Input should be greater than 1',
            'type': 'greater_than',
        }
    ]

    This test is included to document the fact that `Field` and `field` can be used together.
    That said, if you mix them like this, there is a good chance you'll run into surprising behavior/bugs.

    (E.g., `x: Annotated[int, Field(gt=1, validate_default=True)] = field(default=0)` doesn't cause an error)

    I would generally advise against doing this, and if we do change the behavior in the future to somehow merge
    pydantic.FieldInfo and dataclasses.Field in a way that changes runtime behavior for existing code, I would probably
    consider it a bugfix rather than a breaking change.
    
tests/test_dataclasses.py