Re: Old versions of Test::More

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Old versions of Test::More
Date: 2017-04-21 20:21:39
Message-ID: 26526.1492806099@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 4/21/17 14:49, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I'll add a comment, but doing it in PostgresNode.pm would mean jacana
>> (for instance) couldn't run any of the TAP tests. I'mm looking at
>> installing a sufficiently modern Test::Simple package (includes
>> Test::More and test::Build) there, but other oldish machines could also
>> be affected.

> Or you could define note() as an empty function if it doesn't exist.

+1. I'm really not at all happy with the prospect that every time
somebody adds a use of "note" to some new TAP test, we're going to
get a complaint later that that test no longer works on jacana.
We need to either decide that non-ancient Test::More is a hard
requirement for all the tests, or fix things with a centralized
solution. A dummy (or not so dummy?) implementation would serve
for the latter.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ilya Roublev 2017-04-21 20:31:46 multithreading in Batch/pipelining mode for libpq
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-04-21 20:13:55 Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start