On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 09:29:59AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 01:43:36PM +0900, Ian Barwick wrote:
> > > Standard regression tests are helpful because patch authors include new test
> > > cases in the patches that stress their new options or commands. This new test
> > > framework needs to be something that internally runs the regression tests and
> > > exercises DDL deparsing as the regression tests execute DDL. That would mean
> > > that new commands and options would automatically be deparse-tested by our new
> > > framework as soon as patch authors add standard regress support.
> >
> > Are you saying every time a new option is added to a command that a new
> > regression test needs to be added?
>
> Not necessarily -- an existing test could be modified, as well.
>
> > We don't normally do that,
>
> I sure hope we do have all options covered by tests.
Are you saying that every combination of ALTER options is tested? We
have rejected simple regression test additions on the basis that the
syntax works and is unlikely to break once tested once by the developer.
> > and it could easily bloat the regression tests over time.
>
> We had 103 regression tests in 8.2 and we have 145 in 9.4. Does this
> qualify as bloat?
No, that seems fine. I am worried about having to have a test for every
syntax change, which we currently don't do? Was that issue not clear in
my first email?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
