On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 08:58:18AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/2/18 03:23, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> That's a better idea. I have reworked that in 0001. What do you think?
>> This has the same effect as diag(), which shows information directly to
>> the screen, and that's the behavior I
On 3/2/18 03:23, Michael Paquier wrote:
> That's a better idea. I have reworked that in 0001. What do you think?
> This has the same effect as diag(), which shows information directly to
> the screen, and that's the behavior I was looking for.
I ended up using plan skip_all, which seems to be in
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:02:37AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2/24/18 18:29, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Sure. But then I think that it would be nice to show up on screen the
>> reason why the test failed if possible. As of now if SSL is missing the
>> whole run shows in red without provid
On 2/24/18 18:29, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Sure. But then I think that it would be nice to show up on screen the
> reason why the test failed if possible. As of now if SSL is missing the
> whole run shows in red without providing much useful information.
> Instead of 0001 as shaped previously, wh
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 10:51:22AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2/17/18 08:48, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Attached is what I have finished with. I have gathered the feedback
>> from everybody on this thread and I think that the result can satisfy
>> all the requirements mentioned:
>> - 0001
On 2/17/18 08:48, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Attached is what I have finished with. I have gathered the feedback
> from everybody on this thread and I think that the result can satisfy
> all the requirements mentioned:
> - 0001 is a small patch which makes the SSL and LDAP test suite fail
> immediat
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 08:34:41AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> For this an environment variable seems suited to me. Say if
> PG_TAP_ALLOW_INSECURE is set, then the tests said "insecure" are allowed
> to run. If the tests are tried to be run, then they are just skipped
> with a nice log messag
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 03:32:46PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Maybe that would work.
>
> We still need a way to configure whether we want to run tests that open
> TCP/IP listen sockets.
For this an environment variable seems suited to me. Say if
PG_TAP_ALLOW_INSECURE is set, then the tests
On 2/12/18 23:00, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Hm. Wouldn't it be enough to just spread the use of
> TestLib::check_pg_config and use SKIP on the tests where things cannot
> be run then? I see no need to invent an extra facility if all the
> control is already in pg_config.h. For slapd, you can actu
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:22:13PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I would like to see a global setting of some kind that specifies which
> extra tests are allowed to be run. This could be a configure argument
> or an environment/make variable. Rather than make it a list of tests,
> specify whic
I would like to see a global setting of some kind that specifies which
extra tests are allowed to be run. This could be a configure argument
or an environment/make variable. Rather than make it a list of tests,
specify which facilities you have available, e.g.,
PG_EXTRA_TEST_FACILTITIES='tcpip o
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> I agree that it would be nice if the build farm (and my unofficial
> patch tester for that matter) could automatically test the LDAP stuff
> when running on a suitable system, but I think it would need to be
> based not just on ifeq ($(with_l
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 04:44:38PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> I agree that it would be nice if the build farm (and my unofficial
>> patch tester for that matter) could automatically test the LDAP stuff
>> when running on a suitable system
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> I agree that it would be nice if the build farm (and my unofficial
> patch tester for that matter) could automatically test the LDAP stuff
> when running on a suitable system, but I think it would need to be
> based not just on ifeq ($(with_ld
On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 09:28:10AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Michael Paquier writes:
>> That seems like possibly not such a great idea. If somebody were using
>> a run of src/test/ssl to check their build, they would now get no
>> notific
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 09:28:10AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
> That seems like possibly not such a great idea. If somebody were using
> a run of src/test/ssl to check their build, they would now get no
> notification if they'd forgotten to build --with-openssl.
>
> Perhaps
Michael Paquier writes:
> In order to run tests consistently on the whole tree, I use a simple
> alias which tests also things like src/test/ssl and src/test/ldap on the
> way.
> Lately, I am getting annoyed by $subject when working on OpenSSL stuff
> as sometimes I need to test things with and w
17 matches
Mail list logo
