Le sam. 12 févr. 2022 à 04:28, Alvaro Herrera a
écrit :
> On 2022-Feb-11, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Andres Freund writes:
>
> > > +1 on backpatching. Backpatching tests now is less likely to cause
> conflicts,
> > > but more likely to fail during tests.
> >
> > If you've got the energy to do it, +1
On 2022-Feb-11, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > +1 on backpatching. Backpatching tests now is less likely to cause
> > conflicts,
> > but more likely to fail during tests.
>
> If you've got the energy to do it, +1 for backpatching. I agree
> with Michael's opinion that doing so wi
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2022-02-11 21:04:53 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> I opted out of backpatching for now, to solicit more comments on that. It's
>> not a bugfix, but it's also not affecting the compiled bits that we ship, so
>> I
>> think there's a case to be made both for and again
On 2022-02-11 21:04:53 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> I opted out of backpatching for now, to solicit more comments on that. It's
> not a bugfix, but it's also not affecting the compiled bits that we ship, so I
> think there's a case to be made both for and against a backpatch. Looking at
> th
> On 10 Feb 2022, at 01:58, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
The attached patch removes all Test::More planning and instead ensures
that all
tests conclude with a done_testing() call.
Pushed to master now with a few more additional hunks fixing test changes t
At Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:58:27 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote
in
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 02:49:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > =?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= writes:
> >> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> >>> The attached patch removes all Test::More planning and instead ensures
> >>> that
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 02:49:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= writes:
>> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>>> The attached patch removes all Test::More planning and instead ensures that
>>> all
>>> tests conclude with a done_testing() call. While there, I also r
=?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= writes:
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> The attached patch removes all Test::More planning and instead ensures that
>> all
>> tests conclude with a done_testing() call. While there, I also removed a few
>> exit(0) calls from individual tests making them
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> Whether or not to explicitly plan the number of TAP tests per suite has been
> discussed a number of times on this list, often as a side-note in an unrelated
> thread which adds/modifies a test. The concensus has so far weighed towards
> not doing manual bookkeeping o
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 03:01:36PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Whether or not to explicitly plan the number of TAP tests per suite has been
> discussed a number of times on this list, often as a side-note in an unrelated
> thread which adds/modifies a test. The concensus has so far weig
Whether or not to explicitly plan the number of TAP tests per suite has been
discussed a number of times on this list, often as a side-note in an unrelated
thread which adds/modifies a test. The concensus has so far weighed towards
not doing manual bookkeeping of test plans but to let Test::More d
11 matches
Mail list logo
