From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework |
Date: | 2024-06-14 00:02:11 |
Message-ID: | CAOYmi+ka511ACSAz-e-ZZW7Vm65ZpJCb4qZHM22dyZ5eWHVfsg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 1:04 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> One caveat here,
> perhaps, is that the focus of the work you've done up until now and
> the things that I and other community members may want as a condition
> of merging stuff may be somewhat distinct. You will have naturally
> been focused on your goals rather than other people's goals, or so I
> assume.
Right. That's a risk I knew I was taking when I wrote it, so it's not
going to offend me when I need to rewrite things.
> I would be a bit wary of splitting it up over
> too many different threads. It may well make sense to split it up, but
> it will probably be easier to review if the core work to enable this
> is one patch set on one thread where someone can read just that one
> thread and understand the situation, rather than many threads where
> you have to read them all.
I'll try to avoid too many threads. But right now there is indeed just
one thread (OAUTHBEARER) and it's way too much:
- the introduction of pytest
- a Construct-based manipulation of the wire protocol, including
Wireshark-style network traces on failure
- pytest fixtures which spin up libpq and the server in isolation from
each other, relying on the Construct implementation to complete the
seam
- OAuth, which was one of the motivating use cases (but not the only
one) for all of the previous items
I really don't want to derail this thread with those. There are other
people here with their own hopes and dreams (see: unconference notes),
and I want to give them a platform too.
> > That doesn't mean I want to
> > do this without a plan; it just means that the plan can involve saying
> > "this is not working and we can undo it" which makes the uncertainty
> > easier to take.
>
> As a community, we're really bad at this. [...]
I will carry the response to this to the next email.
Thanks,
--Jacob
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2024-06-14 00:12:15 | Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-06-13 23:45:35 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |