Re: Differential code coverage between 16 and HEAD

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Differential code coverage between 16 and HEAD
Date: 2024-04-16 00:05:43
Message-ID: 20240416000543.zkgdfboc44nn5zo6@awork3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2024-04-15 16:53:48 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Sun, 2024-04-14 at 15:33 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > - Coverage for some of the new unicode code is pretty poor:
> >  
> > https://anarazel.de/postgres/cov/16-vs-HEAD-2024-04-14/src/common/unicode_category.c.gcov.html#L122
>
> Thank you for looking. Those functions are tested by category_test.c
> which is run with the 'update-unicode' target.

Testing just during update-unicode doesn't strike me as a great - that way
portability issues wouldn't be found. And if it were tested that way, coverage
would understand it too. I can just include update-unicode when running
coverage, but that doesn't seem great.

Can't we test this as part of the normal testsuite?

I don't at all like that the tests depend on downloading new unicode
data. What if there was an update but I just want to test the current state?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2024-04-16 00:10:19 Re: Stability of queryid in minor versions
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2024-04-16 00:02:03 Re: pg17 issues with not-null contraints