| From: | Rodrigo Ramírez Norambuena <decipher(dot)hk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-www(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PGweb: Patches and tests |
| Date: | 2019-09-15 17:34:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAE9kuxMk+QUgPHjkJeUZRvygYT+8r78Txi6UVJX8rpg0yVMXOA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:25 PM Rodrigo Ramírez Norambuena
<decipher(dot)hk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:05 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> >
>
>
> > For 0005, I would not put that in a migration. I would put that in a
> > test runner or whatever script we will use to build the test
> > environment, to mock varnish (if we need to -- not sure if we do?).
>
> Mock the varnish in first step could be more obfuscate because a
> purge_urls is present in the almost all models. The kick start is a
> add sql into db as varnish_local, after that could add a helper to
> test varnish function to load these functions in db.
>
> About not put in migration seams good choice but this migration run
> only in test model. I'll could find a other way to add for the runner
> or more clean. If you have any idea about this let me know.
For this topic, I attach a new patch with a runner. Inside the runner
is execute SQL sentences for Varnish.
This is better approach against to previous inside of migration model.
Regards!
--
Rodrigo Ramírez Norambuena
http://www.rodrigoramirez.com/
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0005-Refactor-Remove-extra-else-in-__str__-for-Quote.patch | text/x-patch | 3.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nick Bauer-Levey | 2019-09-16 14:12:33 | Re: Wiki typo suggested fix |
| Previous Message | Marcin Cieslak | 2019-09-14 09:38:04 | Re: Wiki typo suggested fix |