Re: Readd use of TAP subtests - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Readd use of TAP subtests
Date
Msg-id 3654396.1638977132@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Readd use of TAP subtests  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: Readd use of TAP subtests
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 12/8/21 09:08, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>> Either way, I think we should be switching tests to done_testing()
>> whenever it would otherwise have to adjust the test count, to avoid
>> having to do that again and again and again going forward.

> I'm not so sure. I don't think its necessarily a bad idea to have to
> declare how many tests you're going to run.

I think the main point is to make sure that the test script reached an
intended exit point, rather than dying early someplace.  It's not apparent
to me why reaching a done_testing() call is a less reliable indicator of
that than executing some specific number of tests --- and I agree with
ilmari that maintaining the test count is a serious PITA.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Appetite for Frama-C annotations?
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: suboverflowed subtransactions concurrency performance optimize