Re: plperl error format vs plpgsql error format vs pgTAP

On May 29, 12:43 pm, Kevin Field <kevinjamesfi(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On May 29, 11:48 am, Kevin Field <kevinjamesfi(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 11:35 am, robertmh(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)gmail(dot)com (Robert Haas) wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Kevin Field <kevinjamesfi(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > On May 28, 5:19 pm, da(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)kineticode(dot)com ("David E. Wheeler") wrote:
> > > >> On May 28, 2009, at 12:53 PM, Kevin Field wrote:
>
> > > >> >> Can pgTap check for a regex instead if just a string?
>
> > > >> > That's the other option, if the pgTAP author is willing...if the
> > > >> > SQLSTATE thing doesn't work out I guess we'll have to go down that
> > > >> > road.
>
> > > >> Patches welcome. ;-)
>
> > > >> http://github.com/theory/pgtap/tree/master/
>
> > > >> I'm getting a new version ready to release as I type.
>
> > > > Thanks, great to know. :) Although, I do think changing plperl is
> > > > the more proper option, so I'm going to try there first...
>
> > > It seems to me that removing line numbers from PL/perl error messages
> > > is not a good solution to anything. Line numbers are extremely useful
> > > for debugging purposes, and getting rid of them because one particular
> > > testing framework doesn't know how to use regular expressions is
> > > solving the wrong problem.
>
> > You're right, but that's not what I'm proposing...
>
> > > I'm also a bit confused because your original post had a line number
> > > in the PL/pgsql output, too, just formatted slightly differently. Why
> > > doesn't that one cause a problem?
>
> > The difference is, in PL/pgsql they're in the CONTEXT: line, whereas
> > in plperl they're in the error line. This is inconsistent; if we fix
> > it, we don't need to add kludge to pgTAP.
>
> > But later in the thread the desired fix became not changing perl but
> > instead making a way to report error codes from plperl, which is what
> > I'm attempting to do with my rusty C skills soon. plperl should have
> > ereport() *anyway*, as I believe Tom had insinuated.
>
> Hmm, I'm rustier than I thought. I might need some help with this
> later.

Actually, I'm not sure I'll be able to be of any use on this after
all. Would someone be able to add plperl ereport to the todo list for
me at least?