From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Subject: | Re: Adding CI to our tree |
Date: | 2022-01-17 19:25:10 |
Message-ID: | 20220117192510.txue5mihjaxlngep@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-01-17 13:50:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 1:19 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > FWIW, to me this shouldn't require a lot of separate manual test
> > invocations. And continuing to have lots of granular test invocations from the
> > buildfarm client is *bad*, because it requires constantly syncing up the set
> > of test targets.
>
> I have a lot of sympathy with Andrew here, actually. If you just do
> 'make check-world' and assume that will cover everything, you get one
> giant output file. That is not great at all.
I very much agree with check-world output being near unusable.
> That's really hard to accomplish if you just run all the tests with one
> invocation - any technique you use to find the boundaries between one test's
> output and the next will prove to be unreliable.
I think it's not actually that hard, with something like I described in the
email upthread, with each tests going into a prescribed location, and the
on-disk status being inspectable in an automated way. check-world could invoke
a command to summarize the tests at the end in a .NOTPARALLEL, to make the
local case easier.
pg_regress/isolation style tests have the "summary" output in regression.out,
but we remove it on success.
Tap tests have their output in the regress_log_* files, however these are far
more verbose than the output from running the tests directly.
I wonder if we should keep regression.out and also keep a copy of the
"shorter" tap test output in a file?
> But having said that, I also agree that it sucks to have to keep
> updating the BF client every time we want to do any kind of
> test-related changes in the main source tree.
It also sucks locally. I *hate* having to dig through a long check-world
output to find the first failure.
This subthread is about the windows tests specifically, where it's even worse
- there's no way to run all tests. Nor a list of test targets that's even
halfway complete :/. One just has to know that one has to invoke a myriad of
vcregress.pl taptest path/to/directory
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-01-17 19:30:53 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2022-01-17 19:23:44 | Re: Pluggable toaster |