| From: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework |
| Date: | 2024-06-12 17:38:54 |
| Message-ID: | CA+mi_8Y=yKbPXDASxq0aYVMRcxp2hZ6ryAGhb26ewEDjw-0m+w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 19:30, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
> I might be missing something obvious, but if we use a third-party libpq driver
> in the testsuite doesn't that imply that a patch adding net new functionality
> to libpq also need to add it to the driver in order to write the tests? I'm
> thinking about the SCRAM situation a few years back when drivers weren't up to
> date.
As Jelte pointed out, new libpq functions can be tested via CFFI. I
posted a practical example in a link upthread (pure Python Psycopg is
entirely implemented on FFI).
-- Daniele
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-06-12 17:53:13 | Re: Improve the granularity of PQsocketPoll's timeout parameter? |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-06-12 17:30:33 | Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework |