On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 01:40:30PM +0200, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 01:48, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > I also want the initial scope to be the new language coexisting with the > > existing Perl tests. If a bulk translation ever happens, it should happen > > long after the debut of the new framework. That said, I don't much trust a > > human-written bulk language translation to go through without some tests > > accidentally ceasing to test what they test in Perl today. > > I definitely don't think we should rewrite all the tests that we have > in Perl today into some other language. But I do think that whatever > language we choose, that language should make it as least as easy to > write tests, as easy to read them and as easy to see that they are > testing the intended thing, as is currently the case for Perl. > Rewriting a few Perl tests into the new language, even if not merging > the rewrite, is a good way of validating that imho.
Agreed. > PS. For PgBouncer I actually hand-rewrote all the tests that we had in > bash (which is the worst testing language ever) in Python and doing so > actually found more bugs in PgBouncer code that our bash tests > wouldn't catch. So it's not necessarily the case that you lose > coverage by rewriting tests. Yep.
