On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 12:48 PM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postg...@jeltef.nl> wrote: > Honestly, my primary *objective* complaint about our current test > suite, is that when a test fails, it's very often impossible for me to > understand why the test failed, by only looking at the output of > "meson test". I think logging the postgres log to stderr for Perl, as > you proposed, would significantly improve that situation. I think the > only thing that we cannot get from Perl Test::More that we can from > pytest, is the fancy recursive introspection of the expression that > pytest shows on error.
This surprises me. I agree that the current state of affairs is kind of annoying, but the contents of regress_log_whatever are usually quite long. Printing all of that out to standard output seems like it's just going to flood the terminal with output. I don't think I'd be a fan of that change. I think I basically agree with all the nearby comments about how the advantages you cite for Python aren't, I don't know, entirely compelling. Switching from ok() to is() or cmp_ok() or like() is minor stuff. Where the output goes is minor stuff. The former can be fixed, and the latter can be worked around with scripts and aliases. The one thing I know about that *I* think is a pretty big problem about Perl is that IPC::Run is not really maintained. But I wonder if the solution to that is to do something ourselves instead of depending on IPC::Run. Beyond that, I think this is just a language popularity contest. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
