| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Test code is worth the space |
| Date: | 2015-08-18 15:54:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HN2nHSQ=Si_+4xYaOxK3QzAWRSmisUXMGhx2nt2NyUrjg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> I'm given to understand that this tight coupling is necessary for
> performance. Are you saying that it could be unwound, or that testing
> strategies mostly need to take it into account, or...?
I'm just saying that we shouldn't expect to find a magic bullet test
framework that solves all these problems. Without restructuring code,
which I don't think is really feasible, we won't be able to have good
unit test coverage for most existing code.
It might be more practical to start using such a new tool for new code
only. Then the new code could be structured in ways that allow the
environment to be mocked more easily and the results observed more
easily.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-08-18 15:59:41 | Re: Potential GIN vacuum bug |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-08-18 15:48:43 | Re: Colon Omitted From pgSQL Assignments |