On May 28, 3:28 pm, and(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)dunslane(dot)net (Andrew Dunstan) wrote:
> Kevin Field wrote:
> > I use pgTAP to make sure my functions produce the correct errors using
> > throws_ok(). So when I get an error from a plpgsql function, it looks
> > like this:
> > ERROR: upper bound of FOR loop cannot be null
> > CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function "foo" line 35 at FOR with integer loop
> > variable
> > ...which I can then test using throws_ok by giving it the string
> > 'upper bound of FOR loop cannot be null'. However, in a plperl
> > function, errors come out in this format:
> > error from Perl function "check_no_loop": Loops not allowed! Node 1
> > cannot be part of node 3 at line 13.
> > Unfortunately, I can't test for this without including the line
> > number, which means that changing any plperl function that I have such
> > a test for pretty much guarantees that I'll need to change the test to
> > reflect the new line numbers the errors would be thrown from in the
> > function.
> > Is it possible to unify the error reporting format, so pgTAP can test
> > them without needing line numbers from plperl functions?
> This is under perl's control, not ours. The perl docco says:
> If the last element of LIST does not end in a newline, the current
> script line number and input line number (if any) are also printed
> and a newline is supplied.
> Can pgTap check for a regex instead if just a string?
That's the other option, if the pgTAP author is willing...if the
SQLSTATE thing doesn't work out I guess we'll have to go down that
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Aidan Van Dyk||Date: 2009-05-28 19:56:14|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Field||Date: 2009-05-28 19:51:38|
|Subject: Re: plperl error format vs plpgsql error format vs pgTAP|