Re: Clean up some pg_dump tests

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Clean up some pg_dump tests
Date: 2023-10-09 09:20:14
Message-ID: 202310090920.2rb6whxm4enb@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I tried this out. I agree it's a good change. BTW, this made me
realize that "unlike" is not a good name: maybe it should be called
"except".

On 2023-Oct-02, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> + if (!defined($tests{$test}->{like}))
> + {
> + diag "missing like in test \"$test\"";
> + }
> + if ($tests{$test}->{unlike}->{$test_key} &&
> + !defined($tests{$test}->{like}->{$test_key}))
> + {
> + diag "useless unlike \"$test_key\" in test \"$test\"";
> + }

I would add quotes to the words "like" and "unlike" there. Otherwise,
these sentences are hard to parse. Also, some commentary on what this
is about seems warranted: maybe "Check that this test properly defines
which dumps the output should match on." or similar.

I didn't like using diag(), because automated runs will not alert to any
problems. Now maybe that's not critical, but I fear that people would
not notice problems if they are just noise in the output. Let's make
them test errors. fail() seems good enough: with the lines I quote
above and omitting the test corrections, I get this, which seems good
enough:

# Failed test 'useless unlike "binary_upgrade" in test "Disabled trigger on partition is not created"'
# at t/002_pg_dump.pl line 4960.

# Failed test 'useless unlike "clean" in test "Disabled trigger on partition is not created"'
# at t/002_pg_dump.pl line 4960.

[... a few others ...]

Test Summary Report
-------------------
t/002_pg_dump.pl (Wstat: 15104 (exited 59) Tests: 11368 Failed: 59)
Failed tests: 241, 486, 731, 1224, 1473, 1719, 1968, 2217
2463, 2712, 2961, 3207, 3452, 3941, 4190
4442, 4692, 4735-4736, 4943, 5094, 5189
5242, 5341, 5436, 5681, 5926, 6171, 6660
6905, 7150, 7395, 7640, 7683, 7762, 7887
7930, 7941, 8134, 8187, 8229, 8287, 8626
8871, 8924, 9023, 9170, 9269, 9457, 9515
9704, 9762, 10345, 10886, 10985, 11105
11123, 11134, 11327
Non-zero exit status: 59
Files=5, Tests=11482, 15 wallclock secs ( 0.43 usr 0.04 sys + 4.56 cusr 1.63 csys = 6.66 CPU)
Result: FAIL

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Ni aún el genio muy grande llegaría muy lejos
si tuviera que sacarlo todo de su propio interior" (Goethe)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gurjeet Singh 2023-10-09 09:31:30 Re: [PoC/RFC] Multiple passwords, interval expirations
Previous Message vignesh C 2023-10-09 08:59:23 Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher nodeHayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>