Re: Mop-up from Test::More version change patch

On 11/23/21 12:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> [ moving thread to -hackers for a bit more visibility ]
>
> Attached are a couple of patches I propose in the wake of commit
> 405f32fc4 (Require version 0.98 of Test::More for TAP tests).
>
> 0001 responds to the failure we saw on buildfarm member wrasse [1]
> where, despite configure having carefully checked for Test::More
> being >= 0.98, actual tests failed with
> Test::More version 0.98 required--this is only version 0.92 at /export/home/nm/farm/studio64v12_6/HEAD/pgsql.build/../pgsql/src/test/perl/PostgreSQL/Test/Utils.pm line 63.
> The reason is that wrasse was choosing "prove" from a different
> Perl installation than "perl", as a result of its configuration
> having set PERL to a nondefault place but doing nothing about PROVE.
>
> We already installed a couple of mitigations for that:
> (a) as of c4fe3199a, configure checks "prove" not "perl" for
> appropriate module versions;
> (b) Noah has modified wrasse's configuration to set PROVE.
> But I'm of the opinion that (b) should not be necessary.
> If you set PERL then it's highly likely that you want to use
> "prove" from the same installation. So 0001 modifies configure
> to first check for an executable "prove" in the same directory
> as $PERL. If that's not what you want then you should override
> it by setting PROVE explicitly.
>
> Since this is mainly meant to prevent an easy-to-make error in
> setting up buildfarm configurations, we should back-patch it.

Do we really have much of an issue left to solve given c4fe3199a? It
feels a bit like a solution in search of a problem.

>
> 0002 is written to apply to v14 and earlier, and what it wants
> to do is back-patch the effects of 405f32fc4, so that the
> minimum Test::More version is 0.98 in all branches. The thought
> here is that (1) somebody is likely to want to back-patch a
> test involving Test::More::subtest before too long; (2) we have
> zero coverage for older Test::More versions anyway, now that
> all buildfarm members have been updated to work with HEAD.
>

This one seems like a good idea.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com