| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: tap tests remove working directories | 
| Date: | 2015-08-07 23:17:15 | 
| Message-ID: | 55C53C7B.9000208@dunslane.net | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On 08/07/2015 05:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> One of the things that makes the TAP tests very difficult and annoying
>> to debug is their insistence on removing their data directories. I'm not
>> sure why they are doing that. We don't do that with pg_regress. Instead
>> we have clean targets to remove them if necessary. I suggest that we
>> either disable that altogether, and provide cleanup make targets, or at
>> least make it optional, say by setting an environment variable, say
>> TMP_CLEANUP or some such. There is probably a good case for defaulting
>> that to off, but I could live with it being on.
> I thought we'd decided awhile ago that best practice would be to
> auto-remove temp directories only on success.  Is that a workable
> behavior for you, or are you concerned about being able to poke
> around even after the test thinks it succeeded?
>
> 			
That certainly isn't what happens, and given the way this is done in 
TestLib.pm, using the CLEANUP parameter of File::Temp's tempdir() 
function, it's not clear how we could do that easily. The deletion 
behaviour is set when you create the directory, not afterwards. What I 
suggested could be done with a couple of lines of code.
I could probably live with your suggestion, especially if I could change 
the behaviour easily. But what we have now is quite frustrating. I have 
to hack the source just to be able to diagnose an error. That's really 
pretty unacceptable.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-07 23:20:08 | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention | 
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-08-07 22:54:44 | Re: WIP: SCRAM authentication |