On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Stas Kelvich <s.kelv...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
(Please do not top-post, this breaks the thread flow.) > I’ve looked over proposed patch and migrated my shell tests scripts that i’ve > used for testing twophase commits on master/slave to this test framework. > Everything looks mature, and I didn’t encountered any problems with writing > new tests using this infrastructure. > From my point of view I don’t see any problems to commit this patches in > their current state. Thanks for the review! > 0) There are several routines that does actual checking, like > is/command_ok/command_fails. I think it will be very handy to have wrappers > psql_ok/psql_fails that calls psql through the command_ok/fails. Do you have a test case in mind for it? > 1) Better to raise more meaningful error when IPC::Run is absent. This has been discussed before, and as far as I recall the current behavior has been concluded as being fine. That's where --enable-tap-tests becomes meaningful. > 2) --enable-tap-tests deserves mention in test/recovery/README and more > obvious error message when one trying to run make check in test/recovery > without --enable-tap-tests. When running without --enable-tap-tests from src/test/recovery you would get the following error per how prove_check is defined: "TAP tests not enabled" > 3) Is it hard to give ability to run TAP tests in extensions? Not really. You would need to enforce a check rule or similar. For the recovery test suite I have mapped the check rule with prove_check. > 4) It will be handy if make check will write path to log files in case of > failed test. Hm, perhaps. The log files are hardcoded in log/, so it is not like we don't know it. That's an argument for the main TAP suite though, not really this series of patch. > 5) psql() accepts database name as a first argument, but everywhere in tests > it is ‘postgres’. Isn’t it simpler to store dbname in connstr, and have > separate function to change database? > 6) Clean logs on prove restart? Clean up tmp installations? Those are issues proper to the main TAP infrastructure, though I agree that we could improve things here, particularly for temporary installations that get automatically... Hm... Cleaned up should a test failure happen? > 7) Make check sets PGPORT PG_REGRESS for prove. Is it necessary? No, that's not needed (I think I noticed that at some point) and that's a bug. We could live without setting it. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
