On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 09:28:10AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > That seems like possibly not such a great idea. If somebody were using > a run of src/test/ssl to check their build, they would now get no > notification if they'd forgotten to build --with-openssl. > > Perhaps we could introduce some new targets, "check-if-enabled" or so, > that act like you want.
Per this argument, we need to do something even for check and installcheck anyway, no? Except that what you are suggesting is to make the tests fail instead of silently being bypassed. Copying an expression you used recently, this boils down to not spend CPU cycles for nothing. The TAP tests showing in red all over your screen don't show any useful information either as one may be building with SSL support, and still getting failures because he/she is working on an SSL-related feature. I prefer making the tests personally not fail, as when building without SSL one needs to move down to run ./configure again, so he likely knows what is is doing. Bypassing them also has the advantage to not do failure check dances, particularly in bash when using temporarily set +e/-e to avoid a problem, so this makes things easier for most cases. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
