Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework

> On 13 Jun 2024, at 20:09, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 7:27 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 Jun 2024, at 00:34, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> FWIW, I felt a lot of pain trying to write recovery TAP tests with
>>> IPC::Run's pumping functionality. It was especially painful (as
>>> someone who knows even less Perl than the "street fighting Perl"
>>> Thomas Munro has described having) before the additional test
>>> infrastructure was added in BackgroudPsql.pm last year.
>>
>> A key aspect of this, which isn't specific to Perl or our use of it, is that
>> this was done in backbranches which doesn't have the (recently) much improved
>> BackgroundPsql.pm. The quality of our tools and the ease of use they provide
>> is directly related to the investment we make into continuously improving our
>> testharness. Regardless of which toolset we adopt, if we don't make this
>> investment (taking learnings from the past years and toolsets into account)
>> we're bound to repeat this thread in a few years advocating for toolset X+1.
>
> True. And thank you for committing BackgroundPsql.pm (and Andres for
> starting that work). My specific case is likely one of a poor work
> person blaming her tools :)

I don't think it is since the tools we had then were really hard to use. I
wrote very similar tests to yours for the online checksums patch and they were
quite complicated to get right. The point is that the complexity was greatly
reduced by the community, and that kind of work will be equally important
regardless of toolset.

--
Daniel Gustafsson