On 2022-04-19 Tu 11:36, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 2022-04-18 Mo 14:07, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>>> No, I think we could probably just port the whole of src/test/PostreSQL
>>> back if required, and have it live alongside the old modules. Each TAP
>>> test is a separate miracle - see comments elsewhere about port
>>> assignment in parallel TAP tests.
>>> But that would mean we have some tests in the old flavor and some in the
>>> new flavor in the back branches, which might get confusing.
>> That works for back-patching entire new test scripts, but not for adding
>> some cases to an existing script, which I think is more common.
>>
>>
>
> I think I've come up with a better scheme that I hope will fix all or
> almost all of the pain complained of in this thread. I should note that
> we deliberately delayed making these changes until fairly early in the
> release 15 development cycle, and that was clearly a good decision.
>
> The attached three patches basically implement the new naming scheme for
> the back branches without doing away with the old scheme or doing a
> wholesale copy of the new modules.
>
> The first simply implements a proper "new" constructor for PostgresNode,
> just like we have in PostgreSQL:Test::Cluster. It's not really essential
> but it seems like a good idea. The second adds all the visible
> functionality of the PostgresNode and TestLib modules to the
> PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster and PostgreSQL::Test::Utils namespaces.. The
> third adds dummy packages so that any code doing 'use
> PostgreSQL::Test::Utils;' or 'use PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster;' will
> actually import the old modules. This last piece is where there might be
> some extra work needed, to export the names so that using an unqualified
> function or variable, say, 'slurp_file("foo");' will work. But in
> general, modulo that issue, I believe things should Just Work (tm). You
> should basically just be able to backpatch any new or modified TAP test
> without difficulty, sed script usage, etc.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
>
Here's a version with a fixed third patch that corrects a file misnaming
and fixes the export issue referred to above. Passes my testing so far.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
