From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Clean up some pg_dump tests |
Date: | 2023-10-10 08:03:47 |
Message-ID: | 8b943417-3f5b-4bb5-9d49-54d7de78acc6@eisentraut.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09.10.23 11:20, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I tried this out. I agree it's a good change. BTW, this made me
> realize that "unlike" is not a good name: maybe it should be called
> "except".
right
> I would add quotes to the words "like" and "unlike" there. Otherwise,
> these sentences are hard to parse. Also, some commentary on what this
> is about seems warranted: maybe "Check that this test properly defines
> which dumps the output should match on." or similar.
Done.
I also moved the code a bit earlier, before the checks for supported
compression libraries etc., so it runs even if those cause a skip.
> I didn't like using diag(), because automated runs will not alert to any
> problems. Now maybe that's not critical, but I fear that people would
> not notice problems if they are just noise in the output. Let's make
> them test errors. fail() seems good enough: with the lines I quote
> above and omitting the test corrections, I get this, which seems good
> enough:
After researching this a bit more, I think "die" is the convention for
problems in the test definitions themselves. (Otherwise, you're writing
a test about the tests, which would be a bit weird.) The result is
approximately the same.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0001-Clean-up-some-pg_dump-tests.patch | text/plain | 5.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Giampaolo Capelli | 2023-10-10 08:17:54 | Re: [PoC] run SQL over ciphertext |
Previous Message | tender wang | 2023-10-10 07:58:22 | Re: Problem, partition pruning for prepared statement with IS NULL clause. |