From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Clean up after TAP tests in oid2name and vacuumlo. |
Date: | 2018-09-04 19:16:55 |
Message-ID: | 28056.1536088615@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> Okay, I don't want to create a dependency between REGRESS and
> HAVE_TAP_TESTS either, but modules specifying both should be able to
> trigger both regressions and tap tests.
Agreed ...
> So I would be inclined to
> create two new rules, say check-regress and installcheck-regress, which
> are invoked if check is called, and trigger pg_regress stuff. Then add
> on top of it the existing prove-check and prove-installcheck. What do
> you think? check and installcheck become this way the centralized place
> for all types of test suites.
Why would we invent a different target name? I was thinking something
roughly like
check: submake $(REGRESS_PREP)
ifdef REGRESS
$(pg_regress_check) $(REGRESS_OPTS) $(REGRESS)
endif
ifdef TAP_TESTS
$(prove_check)
endif
although getting it to print a useful response when neither symbol
is set would require complicating things a bit. Still, as long as
there's just one copy of this rule, messiness isn't a big problem.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-09-04 20:58:18 | Re: pgsql: Clean up after TAP tests in oid2name and vacuumlo. |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-09-04 19:03:21 | Re: pgsql: Clean up after TAP tests in oid2name and vacuumlo. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-09-04 19:48:24 | Re: Bug fix for glibc broke freebsd build in REL_11_STABLE |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-09-04 19:03:21 | Re: pgsql: Clean up after TAP tests in oid2name and vacuumlo. |