Re: Add regression tests for ROLE (USER)

> However, before it can get committed, I think this set of tests needs
> streamlining. It does seem to me valuable, but I think it's wasteful
> in terms of runtime to create so many roles, do just one thing with
> them, and then drop them. I recommend consolidating some of the
> tests. For example:
>
> Generally, I think that the tests which return a syntax error are of
> limited value and should probably be dropped. That is unlikely to get
> broken by accident. If the syntax error is being thrown by something
> outside of bison proper, that's probably worth testing. But I think
> that testing random syntax variations is a pretty low-value
> proposition.
>
>
Thanks Robert.

Although the idea of being repetitive was just about trying to make tests
simpler to infer for the next person, but I guess this example was
obviously an overkill. Point taken, would correct and revert with an
updated patch.

However, the other aspect that you mention, I am unsure if I understand
correctly. Do you wish that syntactical errors not be tested? If so,
probably you're referring to tests such as the one below, and then I think
it may get difficult at times to bifurcate how to chose which tests to
include and which to not. Can I assume that all errors that spit an error
messages with 'syntax error' are to be skipped, probably that'd be an easy
test for me to know what you'd consider important?

+ALTER ROLE regress_rol_rol18 WITH ENCRYPTED UNENCRYPTED PASSWORD 'abc';
+ERROR: syntax error at or near "UNENCRYPTED"
+LINE 1: ALTER ROLE regress_rol_rol18 WITH ENCRYPTED UNENCRYPTED PASS...

Personally, I think all tests are important. Unless there is a clear
understanding that aiming for 100% code-coverage isn't the goal, I think
all tests are important, syntactical or otherwise. Its possible that not
all code is reachable (therefore testable) but the vision generally remains
at 100%.

Do let me know your view on this second point, so that I can remove these
tests if so required.

Robins Tharakan