I wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I have been through crash-me in some detail, and it left a very bad
> > taste in my mouth. Don't bother holding it up as an example of good
> > practice.
>
> You seem to miss Dan's point. The specific implementation of crashme
> is undoubtedly flawed in a number of ways, but the idea is very useful
> as part of an acceptance testing suite. In short, it would probably
> be beneficial to us to fix crashme so that it tests the proper,
> standards-compliant things and reports the actual results, and then
> include it in the test suite.
Actually, now that I think about it, it would probably be more beneficial
to merge any correct tests that we aren't already performing into our
existing regression test framework, provided that the end result doesn't
take too long to run (as you pointed out elsewhere, regression tests
that take a really long time to run simply won't be run by most people,
except perhaps in a tinderbox type of environment).
Overall, it might be of some benefit to mark individual regression tests
with a priority, and then make it possible to run only those tests of
a specified priority or higher. That way, the indvidual developer may
decide for himself which group of regression tests to run based on the
amount of time he's willing to let it take and how much hardware he has
to throw at it. And at the same time, it would make it easier for new
tests to be included in the suite without worrying about the impact it
would have on people running the tests.
--
Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
