On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> I simply don't understand how we can be getting any meaningful test
>> coverage out of those cases. I mean, if we want to check every bit of
>> syntax that could lead to a syntax error, we could probably come up
>> with a near-infinite num
I simply don't understand how we can be getting any meaningful test
coverage out of those cases. I mean, if we want to check every bit of
syntax that could lead to a syntax error, we could probably come up
with a near-infinite number of test cases:
I think that it would be enough to check for
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Robins Tharakan wrote:
> It still doesn't address the excessive (syntactical) checks tough. I am
> still unclear as to how to identify which checks to skip. (As in, although I
> have a personal preference of checking everything, my question probably
> wasn't clear
On 6 July 2013 20:25, Robins Tharakan wrote:
>
> Do let me know your view on this second point, so that I can remove these
> tests if so required.
Hi,
Please find attached the updated patch.
It address the first issue regarding reducing the repeated CREATE / DROP
ROLEs.
It still doesn't addr
I think that it is not that simple: it is a good value to check that the
syntax error message conveys a useful information for the user, and that
changes to the parser rules do not alter good quality error messages.
It's good to check those things when a feature is implemented. However,
once
On 2013-07-07 11:11:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fabien COELHO writes:
> >> Generally, I think that the tests which return a syntax error are of
> >> limited value and should probably be dropped.
>
> > I think that it is not that simple: it is a good value to check that the
> > syntax error mess
Fabien COELHO writes:
>> Generally, I think that the tests which return a syntax error are of
>> limited value and should probably be dropped.
> I think that it is not that simple: it is a good value to check that the
> syntax error message conveys a useful information for the user, and that
>
Generally, I think that the tests which return a syntax error are of
limited value and should probably be dropped.
I think that it is not that simple: it is a good value to check that the
syntax error message conveys a useful information for the user, and that
changes to the parser rules do
> However, before it can get committed, I think this set of tests needs
> streamlining. It does seem to me valuable, but I think it's wasteful
> in terms of runtime to create so many roles, do just one thing with
> them, and then drop them. I recommend consolidating some of the
> tests. For exam
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> This updated version works for me and addresses previous comments.
>
> I think that such tests are definitely valuable, especially as many corner
> cases which must trigger errors are covered.
>
> I recommend to apply it.
I'm attaching an upd
This updated version works for me and addresses previous comments.
I think that such tests are definitely valuable, especially as many corner
cases which must trigger errors are covered.
I recommend to apply it.
Please find an updated patch as per comments on Commitfest (comments
replicated
Hi,
Please find an updated patch as per comments on Commitfest (comments
replicated below for ease of understanding).
Feedback 1:
fc: role_ro2/3 used twice?
rt: Corrected in this update.
Feedback 2:
fc: I do not understand why "asdf" conveys anything about an expected
failure. Association of Sci
Hi,
Please find attached a patch to take 'make check' code-coverage of ROLE
(USER) from 59% to 91%.
Any feedback is more than welcome.
--
Robins Tharakan
regress_user.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your s
13 matches
Mail list logo
