From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org> |
Cc: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Improvements in psql hooks for variables |
Date: | 2016-11-21 13:58:24 |
Message-ID: | 20161121135823.GJ13284@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel,
* Daniel Verite (daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org) wrote:
> "make check" seems OK with that, I hope it doesn't cause any regression
> elsewhere.
You can see what the code coverage of psql is in our current regression
tests by going here:
http://coverage.postgresql.org/src/bin/psql/index.html
It's not exactly a pretty sight and certainly not all callers of
ParseVariableBool() are covered.
I'd strongly suggest you either do sufficient manual testing, or add
regression tests, most likely using the tap test system (you can see an
example of that in src/bin/pg_dump/t and in other 't' directories).
You can generate that report after you make changes yourself using
'make coverage-html'.
Thanks!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-11-21 13:59:18 | Re: Improvements in psql hooks for variables |
Previous Message | Daniel Verite | 2016-11-21 13:49:45 | Re: Improvements in psql hooks for variables |