From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Nikolay Shaplov <n(dot)shaplov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PROPOSAL] TAP test example |
Date: | 2015-11-19 15:57:27 |
Message-ID: | 8515.1447948647@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nikolay Shaplov <n(dot)shaplov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> But this is not the issue. We can change it any way we like. The question do
> we need such example at all, or no?
I'm kind of -1 on the idea of a module that doesn't actually do something
*useful*. Let's write some actual tests instead, and make them readable
enough that people can steal and repurpose the skeleton easily.
> I wrote this example based on ssl TAP test. There was no DBI there. And I
> think it was done for purpose. If we add DBI to tests, then we should add it
> to build dependencies. And it is not a good idea, and so not a good example.
Agreed. We aren't going to accept any core tests that depend on DBI/DBD.
Now, that might be a fine example for tests written to test something that
uses Postgres ... but not as an example of how to write a core test.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-11-19 15:57:46 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-11-19 15:52:22 | Re: GIN pending list clean up exposure to SQL |