On 8/1/20 5:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes: >> On 1 Aug 2020, at 09:06, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: >>> AFAICR the feedback is that the Expect perl module is not welcome, which >>> seems to suggest that it would have to be re-implemented somehow. This is >>> not my dev philosophy, I won't do that, so I'm sorry to say that psql >>> coverage will remain pretty abysmal. >> Re-reading this thread, I see no complaints about introducing a dependency on >> Expect. The feedback returned in this case is that the patch hasn't applied >> since March, and that the patch is more than welcome to be re-entered in the >> next CF once it does. > Personally, I'd object to introducing a hard dependency on Expect, as > there are no doubt a lot of developers and buildfarm members who don't > have that installed. But I see no reason we couldn't skip some tests > if it's lacking, as we're already doing with IO::Pty in > 010_tab_completion.pl. > > That does raise the question of whether Expect makes things enough > easier than raw IO::Pty that it's worth adding that dependency (and > hence foregoing the tests on some machines). But I'm prepared to be > convinced on that point. > >
+1. Also note that the Windows animals don't and probably will never support Expect, since Windows doesn't have PTYs. Expect.pm is in fact a pure perl module that sits on top of IO::Pty, which in turn sits on top of IO::Tty. So if you have those Expect.pm probably isn't a huge stretch. But let's not add a dependency if we can avoid it. And if we do add one it will need to be a soft one like the case you mentioned. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
