Re: psql - improve test coverage from 41% to 88% - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: psql - improve test coverage from 41% to 88%
Date
Msg-id 2023638.1596317273@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: psql - improve test coverage from 41% to 88%  (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>)
Responses Re: psql - improve test coverage from 41% to 88%
List pgsql-hackers
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
> On 1 Aug 2020, at 09:06, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
>> AFAICR the feedback is that the Expect perl module is not welcome, which seems to suggest that it would have to be
re-implementedsomehow. This is not my dev philosophy, I won't do that, so I'm sorry to say that psql coverage will
remainpretty abysmal. 

> Re-reading this thread, I see no complaints about introducing a dependency on
> Expect.  The feedback returned in this case is that the patch hasn't applied
> since March, and that the patch is more than welcome to be re-entered in the
> next CF once it does.

Personally, I'd object to introducing a hard dependency on Expect, as
there are no doubt a lot of developers and buildfarm members who don't
have that installed.  But I see no reason we couldn't skip some tests
if it's lacking, as we're already doing with IO::Pty in
010_tab_completion.pl.

That does raise the question of whether Expect makes things enough
easier than raw IO::Pty that it's worth adding that dependency (and
hence foregoing the tests on some machines).  But I'm prepared to be
convinced on that point.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btree BackwardScan race condition on Standby during VACUUM
Next
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Autovacuum on partitioned table (autoanalyze)