On Sat, Oct 01, 2022 at 03:15:14PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-10-01 11:14:20 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > (I still suggest my patches to run all tests using vcregress. The number of
> > people who remember that, for v15, cirrusci runs incomplete tests is probably
> > fewer than five.)
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220623193125.GB22452%40telsasoft.com
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220828144447.GA21897%40telsasoft.com
>
> Andrew, the defacto maintainer of src/tools/msvc, kind of NACKed those. But
> the reasoning might not hold with vcregress being on life support.
I think you're referring to comment here:
87a81b91-87bf-c0bc-7e4f-06dffadcf737@dunslane.net
..which I tried to discuss here:
20220528153741.GK19626@telsasoft.com
| I think there was some confusion about the vcregress "alltaptests"
| target. I said that it's okay to add it and make cirrus use it (and
| that the buildfarm could use it too). Andrew responded that the
| buildfarm wants to run different tests separately. But Andres seems
| to have interpretted that as an objection to the addition of an
| "alltaptests" target, which I think isn't what's intended - it's fine
| if the buildfarm prefers not to use it.
> OTOH, to me the basic advantage is to have *any* CI coverage. We don't need to
> put the bar for the backbranches higher than were we were at ~2 weeks ago.
I agree that something is frequently better than nothing. But it could
be worse if it gives the impression that "CI showed that everything was
green", when in fact it hadn't run 10% of the tests:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BhUKGLneD%2Bq%2BE7upHGwn41KGvbxhsKbJ%2BM-y9nvv7_Xjv8Qog%40mail.gmail.com
> I'd have no problem renaming main/isolation to isolation/isolation and
> main/regress to pg_regress/regress or such.
+1
--
Justin
