On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 08:08:31PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> > In my memory I remember a site that displayed the code coverage of the
> > regression tests, but I can't find it now. Does anybody know?
> >
>
> Are you thinking of spikesource? According to thier numbers, we currently
> cover abou
On Sunday 11 February 2007 05:59, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 12:20:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I do
> > agree with adding a test when you think it is likely to be able to catch
> > a whole class of errors, or even a specific error if it seems especially
> > likely
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" writes:
> Well, that is covered in the system that I took that from. The full
> description is;
> 1. Identify a bug or missing feature.
> 2. Write the test that proves the bug or missing feature.
> 3. Run the test to prove that it fails.
> 4. Code until the test passes and
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:30:45 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" writes:
> > How about a rule that says no new ode without a test?
>
> We've got way too many tests like that already, ie, a bunch of
> mostly-redundant functional tests of isolated new features.
> Most of
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" writes:
> How about a rule that says no new ode without a test?
We've got way too many tests like that already, ie, a bunch of
mostly-redundant functional tests of isolated new features.
Most of the code I worry about there isn't any simple way to
test from the SQL level --- th
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:36:56 +0100
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I'm not concerned so much about the runtime as the development and
> > maintenance effort...
>
> Shouldn't we at least add the one or two exemplary statements that
> failed so we have some sort of
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 12:20:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I do
> agree with adding a test when you think it is likely to be able to catch
> a whole class of errors, or even a specific error if it seems especially
> likely to recur, but right now I'm not seeing how we do that here.
Well, current
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shouldn't we at least add the one or two exemplary statements that
> failed so we have some sort of coverage of the problem?
We could, but I'm unexcited about it. The known failures are an
extremely narrow case: we're trying to evaluate expressions
Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... massive expansion of the tests doesn't seem justified
> >
> > What about the idea that's been floated in the past about a --
> > extensive mode for regression testing that would (genera
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 02:16:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... massive expansion of the tests doesn't seem justified
>
> > What about the idea that's been floated in the past about a --
> > extensive mode
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While we can modify the regression tests to catch this specific problem
> in the future, I wonder if there ought to be more testing of security
> releases in the future. When a problem is reported, fixed, tested, and
> the resulting security fix is publicly
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 12:33 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Is a test going to get added to the regression tests to catch similar
> regressions in the future?
While we can modify the regression tests to catch this specific problem
in the future, I wonder if there ought to be more testing of securi
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is a test going to get added to the regression tests to catch similar
regressions in the future?
I've been thinking about that. It seems that the regression tests have
fairly poor coverage of use of typmod-bearing data types in gener
Jim Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... massive expansion of the tests doesn't seem justified
> What about the idea that's been floated in the past about a --
> extensive mode for regression testing that would (generally) only be
> used by the
On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is a test going to get added to the regression tests to catch similar
regressions in the future?
I've been thinking about that. It seems that the regression tests
have
fairly poor coverage of use of ty
Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is a test going to get added to the regression tests to catch similar
> regressions in the future?
I've been thinking about that. It seems that the regression tests have
fairly poor coverage of use of typmod-bearing data types in general;
most of our
On Feb 6, 12:27 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) wrote:
> As per numerous reports this morning, PG 8.2.2 and 8.1.7 both fail on
> fairly simple scenarios involving typmod-bearing columns (varchar,
> numeric, etc) with check constraints or functional indexes (and maybe
> other cases too, but those
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 13:27:47 -0500,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have applied a patch that resolves the problem AFAICT, but this time
> around it would be nice to get some more eyeballs and testing on it.
> Please try CVS HEAD or branch tips this afternoon, if you can. Core
> i
18 matches
Mail list logo
