From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz |
Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org, daniel(at)yesql(dot)se, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Replacing TAP test planning with done_testing() |
Date: | 2022-02-10 06:26:44 |
Message-ID: | 20220210.152644.110916952267509283.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:58:27 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 02:49:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > =?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org> writes:
> >> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> >>> The attached patch removes all Test::More planning and instead ensures that all
> >>> tests conclude with a done_testing() call. While there, I also removed a few
> >>> exit(0) calls from individual tests making them more consistent.
> >
> >> LGTM, +1.
> >
> > LGTM too.
+1. I was anoyed by the definitions especially when adding Non-windows
only tests.
> Not tested, but +1. Could it be possible to backpatch that even if
> this could be qualified as only cosmetic? Each time a test is
> backpatched we need to tweak the number of tests planned, and that may
> change slightly depending on the branch dealt with.
+1. I think that makes backpatching easier.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nitin Jadhav | 2022-02-10 06:52:48 | Re: Report checkpoint progress with pg_stat_progress_checkpoint (was: Report checkpoint progress in server logs) |
Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-02-10 06:17:36 | Re: Make mesage at end-of-recovery less scary. |