On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 6:39 AM Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, so the consensus I'm sensing is that we should add a pytest > framework, backpatch it into all the live branches, and initially port > some relatively contained set of tests and backpatch that too.
As for "new tests that can't easily be written today": I've already written several protocol-level tests for OAuth that implement broken client and server behavior (they're in the pg-pytest-suite thread). Those could be ported for review on top of the new framework. I could look at some of the more recent ad-hoc Perl socket tests at the same time. > If I had > to pick a candidate suite it would be the recovery tests (and my patch > set conveniently contains a patch specifically for those). No strong opinions here on the candidates for initial backport -- but I will note that src/test/recovery doesn't look like a small slice, at 13k lines and more than half of the Test::Cluster API used. > I guess > that means the Test::Session work gets left on the cutting room floor - > if we run into issues with perl tests the answer will be to convert them > to pytest. If you think Test::Session is good to go, I see no reason not to improve the Perl tests (since there seems to be a growing consensus that the conversion won't happen overnight). --Jacob
