Re: More business with $Test::Builder::Level in the TAP tests

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: More business with $Test::Builder::Level in the TAP tests
Date: 2021-10-11 14:48:54
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/10/21 7:18 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 12:14:57PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I think we need to be more explicit about it, especially w.r.t. indirect
>> calls. Every subroutine in the call stack below where you want to error
>> reported as coming from should contain this line.
> Hmm. I got to think about that for a couple of days, and the
> simplest, still the cleanest, phrasing I can come up with is that:
> This should be incremented by any subroutine part of a stack calling
> test routines from Test::More, like ok() or is().
> Perhaps you have a better suggestion?

I would say:

This should be incremented by any subroutine which directly or indirectly calls test routines from Test::More, such as ok() or is().



Andrew Dunstan

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-10-11 14:57:26 Re: EXPLAIN(VERBOSE) to CTE with SEARCH BREADTH FIRST fails
Previous Message Prabhat Sahu 2021-10-11 14:44:59 Corruption with IMMUTABLE functions in index expression.