|From:||Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>|
|To:||Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>|
|Cc:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>|
|Subject:||Re: psql - improve test coverage from 41% to 88%|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> Re-reading this thread, I see no complaints about introducing a
> dependency on Expect.
Indeed, Tom's complaint was on another thread, possibly when interactive
tests "src/bin/psql/t/010_tab_completion.pl" were added.
ISTM that one of the issue was that some farm animal would be broken.
I'm quite lost about Expect portability discussion wrt windows, it is
unclear to me whether it is expected to work there or not.
As I stated, I do not like re-inventing the wheel, probably quite badly,
when someone else already did a good job.
|Next Message||SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM||2020-08-03 20:07:32||Re: Reduce/eliminate the impact of FPW|
|Previous Message||Wolfgang Walther||2020-08-03 19:25:18||Re: extension patch of CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER|