Re: Adding CI to our tree

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 03:34:11PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-01-13 15:27:40 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > I can probably adjust to whatever we decide to do. But I think we're
> > really just tinkering at the edges here. What I think we really need is
> > the moral equivalent of `make check-world` in one invocation of
> > vcregress.pl.
>
> I agree strongly that we need that. But I think a good chunk of Justin's
> changes are actually required to get there?
>
> Specifically, unless we want lots of duplicated logic in vcregress.pl, we
> need to make vcregress know how to run NO_INSTALLCHECK test. The option added
> was just so the buildfarm doesn't start to run tests multiple times...

The main reason I made the INSTALLCHECK runs conditional (they only run if a
new option is specified) is because of these comments:

| # Disabled because these tests require "shared_preload_libraries=pg_stat_statements",
| # which typical installcheck users do not have (e.g. buildfarm clients).
| NO_INSTALLCHECK = 1

Also, I saw that you saw that Thomas discovered/pointed out that a bunch of TAP
tests aren't being run by CI. I think vcregress should have an "alltap"
target that runs everything like glob("**/t/"). CI would use that instead of
the existing ssl, auth, subscription, recovery, and bin targets. The buildfarm
could switch to that after it's been published.

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220114234947.av4kkhuj7netsy5r%40alap3.anarazel.de

--
Justin