Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set
Date: 2022-05-18 09:20:08
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 01:03:15AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 02:30:00PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Because the shape of the new names does not change the test coverage
>> ("regression" prefix or the addition of the double quotes with
>> backslashes for all the database names), while keeping the code a bit
>> simpler. If you think that the older names are more adapted, I have
>> no objections to use them, FWIW, which is something like the patch
>> attached would achieve.
>> This uses the same convention as before 322becb, but not
>> the one of where "regression" was appended to the database
>> names.
> I would have picked the names, both because was the senior
> implementation and because doing so avoids warnings under

Yes, I saw that. This did not bother me much as the TAP tests run in
isolation, but I am fine to stick to your option and silence these.

> More-notable line from that same log:
> sh: /Users/buildfarm/bf-data/HEAD/ No such file or directory

So you are using EXTRA_REGRESS_OPTS, then, and a space is missing from
the first argument of the command used to make that work properly.

> Commit 7dd3ee5 adopted much of the approach to running
> pg_regress, but it didn't grab the "is($rc, 0, 'regression tests pass')"
> needed to make defects like that report a failure.

Okay, added this one.

>> + generate_db($oldnode, "\\\"\\", 1, 45, "\\\\\"\\\\\\");
>> + generate_db($oldnode, '', 46, 90, '');
>> + generate_db($oldnode, '', 91, 127, '');
> Does this pass on Windows? I'm 65% confident that released IPC::Run can't
> handle this input due to If it's
> passing for you on Windows, then disregard.

Hmm. The CI has been passing for me with this name pattern in place,
as of

Attached is an updated patch to address your concerns.

Attachment Content-Type Size
upgrade-tap-fixes-noah-3.patch text/x-diff 1.9 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Antonin Houska 2022-05-18 09:44:57 Re: Privileges on PUBLICATION
Previous Message Antonin Houska 2022-05-18 09:16:10 Re: Privileges on PUBLICATION