Re: convert libpq uri-regress tests to tap test

Hi,

On 2022-02-24 10:17:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2022-02-24 13:31:40 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> I think the TAP scripts should be in src/interfaces/libpq/t/, as usual. The
> >> supporting code snippets could live in some other directory under
> >> src/interfaces/libpq/, which might be called "test" or something else, not
> >> that important.
>
> > Why not in t/? We can't easily build the test programs in libpq/ itself, but
> > libpq/t should be fairly doable.
>
> I think that having t/ directories contain only Perl test scripts
> is a good convention that we should stick to. Peter's proposal
> of a separate test/ subdirectory for C test scaffolding is
> probably fine.

That exists today and continues to exist in the patch upthread, so it's easy
;). I just need to move the libpq/test/t to libpq/t and adjust the binary
path.

One annoying bit is that our current tap invocation infrastructure for msvc
won't know how to deal with that. We put the build directory containing t/
onto PATH, but that won't work for test/. But we also don't want to install
test binaries. Not sure what the solution for that is.

Even on !windows, we only know how to find "test executables" in tap tests via
PATH. We're in the source dir, so we can't just do test/executable.

I probably just need another coffee, but right now I don't even see how to add
anything to PATH given $(prove_check)'s definition - it ends up with multiple
shells. We can fix that by using && in the definition, which might be a good
thing anyway?

Attached three patches:

0001: Convert src/interfaces/libpq/test to a tap test
0002: Add tap test infrastructure to src/interfaces/libpq
0003: Move libpq_pipeline test into src/interfaces/libpq.

I did 0001 and 0002 in that order because prove errors out with a stacktrace
if no tap tests exist... It might make more sense to commit them together, but
for review it's easier to keep them separate I think.

Andrew, do you have an idea about the feasibility of supporting any of this
with the msvc build?

I'm mildly inclined to only do 0001 and 0002 for now. We'd not loose msvc
coverage, because it already doesn't build the test. Once we've ironed that
stuff out, we could do 0003?

Greetings,

Andres Freund