Re: count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")

Hi

2016-01-17 8:43 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:

>
>
> 2016-01-12 17:27 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>:
>
>> On 03/01/16 22:49, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>
>>> In the unit test, I'd personally prefer just building a table with the
>>> test cases and the expected NULL/NOT NULL results, at least for all the
>>> calls that would fit that paradigm. That should significantly reduce the
>>> size of the test. Not a huge deal though...
>>>
>>
>> I don't really see the point. "The size of the test" doesn't seem like a
>> worthwhile optimization target, unless the test scripts are somehow really
>> unnecessarily large.
>>
>> Further, if you were developing code related to this, previously you
>> could just copy-paste the defective test case in order to easily reproduce
>> a problem. But now suddenly you need a ton of different setup.
>>
>> I don't expect to really have a say in this, but I think the tests are
>> now worse than they were before.
>>
>
> the form of regress tests is not pretty significant issue. Jim's design is
> little bit transparent, Marko's is maybe little bit practical. Both has
> sense from my opinion, and any hasn't significant advantage against other.
>

any possible agreement, how these tests should be designed?

simple patch, simple regress tests, so there are no reason for long waiting.

Regards

Pavel

> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
>
>>
>>
>> .m
>>
>
>