| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Readd use of TAP subtests |
| Date: | 2021-12-08 15:25:32 |
| Message-ID: | 3654396.1638977132@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 12/8/21 09:08, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>> Either way, I think we should be switching tests to done_testing()
>> whenever it would otherwise have to adjust the test count, to avoid
>> having to do that again and again and again going forward.
> I'm not so sure. I don't think its necessarily a bad idea to have to
> declare how many tests you're going to run.
I think the main point is to make sure that the test script reached an
intended exit point, rather than dying early someplace. It's not apparent
to me why reaching a done_testing() call is a less reliable indicator of
that than executing some specific number of tests --- and I agree with
ilmari that maintaining the test count is a serious PITA.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2021-12-08 15:34:21 | Re: suboverflowed subtransactions concurrency performance optimize |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-12-08 15:21:12 | Re: Appetite for Frama-C annotations? |