At Tue, 1 Jun 2021 16:45:52 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote in
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:05 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Mmmm. That looks like meaning that we don't intend to support the
> > Dilip's case, and means that we support the use of
> > archive-command-copies-only-other-than-wal-segments?
>
> Actually, I think Dilip's case ought to be supported, but I also think
> that somebody else might disagree, so it's better for me if the test
> doesn't need to rely on it.
Understood.
> > Agreed. I often annoyed by a long-lasting TAP script when I wanted to
> > do one of the test items in it. However, I was not sure which is our
> > policy here, consolidating all related tests into one script or having
> > separate scripts containing tests up to a "certain" number or a set of
> > tests that would take a certain time, or limiting by number the of
> > lines. I thought that we are on the first way as I have told several
> > times to put new tests into an existing script.
>
> Different people might have different opinions about this, but my
> opinion is that when it's possible to combine the test cases in a way
> that feels natural, it's good to do. For example if I have two tests
> that require the same setup and teardown but do different things in
> the middle, and if those things seem related, then it's great to set
> up once, try both things, and tear down once. However I don't support
> combining test cases where it's just concatenating them one after
> another, because that sort of thing seems to have no benefit. Fewer
> files in the source tree is not a goal of itself.
Sounds like a reasonable criteria.
> > No. Thanks for the words, Robert. I might be a bit too naive, but I
> > had an anxious feeling that I might have been totally pointless or my
> > words might have been too cryptic/broken (my fingers are quite fat),
> > or I might have done something wrong or anything other. Anyway I
> > thought I might have done something wrong here.
>
> No, I don't think so. I think the difficulty is more that the three of
> us who are mostly involved in this conversation all have different
> native languages, and we are trying to discuss an issue which is very
> subtle. Sometimes I am having difficulty understanding precisely what
> either you or Dilip are intending to say, and it would not surprise me
> to learn that there are difficulties in the other direction also. If
> we seem to be covering the same topics multiple times or if any
> important points seem to be getting ignored, that's probably the
> reason.
That makes me convinced. Thanks for the thought and sorry for
bothering with the complaint.
Anyway, Now I agree to the all of the direction here.
Thanks!
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
