Re: [pgAdmin4][Patch]: RM #2963 - Backup database, Restore database and Maintenance Database failed for é object.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:

> Hi
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:00 AM, Khushboo Vashi <
> khushboo(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:54 AM, Khushboo Vashi <
>>>> khushboo(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please find the attached patch to fix below issues:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. #2963 - Backup database, Restore database and Maintenance Database
>>>>> failed for é object
>>>>> 2. #3157 - Process viewer doesn't show complete command executed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Test cases are not included for these fixes as we don't have test
>>>>> cases for these modules (backup, restore, maintenance).
>>>>> I will create one separate RM for the same which will cover this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting that you fix these together, as together they also exhibit
>>>> another bug :-). Backing up the é database displays the following
>>>> command:
>>>>
>>>> /usr/local/pgsql/bin/pg_dump --file "/Users/dpage/foo.bak" --host
>>>> "localhost" --port "5432" --username "postgres" --no-password --verbose
>>>> --format=c --blobs "&#233;"
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can reproduce this issue only with notification dialogue (which I have
>> fixed in the attached patch) not with the details dialogue. Please refer
>> the screenshots for the same.
>>
>
> Huh, interesting. What Python version were you using? I had 2.7.
>
>
PY 2.7 and PY 3.5

> Also, what tests can we add for backup/restore? We have nothing at all at
>>> the moment, and it is pretty troublesome. I'd like to ensure that we can
>>> backup and restore a database correctly, and ensure that the displayed
>>> commands are what we expect and that we get valid output from
>>> pg_dump/pg_restore (though, it may change from PG version to PG version, so
>>> maybe we should just check for something small and generic). I guess this
>>> might need some config parameters for the tests to specify the pg_* utility
>>> paths for each server.
>>>
>>> I'd suggest maybe having a feature test that opens the prefs, sets the
>>> appropriate path, then runs a backup, waits for it to finish, checks the
>>> process monitor output, then restores the same backup to a new database,
>>> checking the process monitor output again, and then checking that the
>>> restored database contains at least one object from the original database
>>> (we don't need to check all of pg_dump/pg_restore, just that something
>>> expected was restored). We should use a (partial) database name and backup
>>> filename from the advanced test config file, and I think both should
>>> default to some interesting non-ASCII strings to ensure quoting works.
>>>
>> I was thinking of writing the unit test cases for the processes.py file
>> as all the major functionalities for backup/restore/maintenance jobs done
>> by this file, but by this we can not achieve the front-end string
>> validation esp for non-ASCII strings.
>> So, I am thinking of writing feature tests (as you have suggested) first
>> and after that if needed I will write unit test cases.
>>
>
> Sounds good. Let's try to keep the feature testing minimal, and expand the
> coverage with unit tests.
>
> Sure.

> Thanks!
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>