From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Replacing TAP test planning with done_testing() |
Date: | 2022-02-11 20:04:53 |
Message-ID: | 0097EBBB-6178-432C-AA8D-214778BEAAF1@yesql.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 10 Feb 2022, at 01:58, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>>> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
>>>> The attached patch removes all Test::More planning and instead ensures that all
>>>> tests conclude with a done_testing() call.
Pushed to master now with a few more additional hunks fixing test changes that
happened between posting this and now.
> Could it be possible to backpatch that even if
> this could be qualified as only cosmetic? Each time a test is
> backpatched we need to tweak the number of tests planned, and that may
> change slightly depending on the branch dealt with.
I opted out of backpatching for now, to solicit more comments on that. It's
not a bugfix, but it's also not affecting the compiled bits that we ship, so I
think there's a case to be made both for and against a backpatch. Looking at
the oldest branch we support, it seems we've done roughly 25 changes to the
test plans in REL_10_STABLE over the years, so it's neither insignificant nor
an everyday activity. Personally I don't have strong opinions, what do others
think?
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-02-11 20:16:22 | Re: Replacing TAP test planning with done_testing() |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2022-02-11 19:52:46 | Re: postgres_fdw: using TABLESAMPLE to collect remote sample |