Re: Clean up some pg_dump tests - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Clean up some pg_dump tests
Date
Msg-id 202310090920.2rb6whxm4enb@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Clean up some pg_dump tests  (Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>)
Responses Re: Clean up some pg_dump tests
List pgsql-hackers
I tried this out.  I agree it's a good change.  BTW, this made me
realize that "unlike" is not a good name: maybe it should be called
"except".

On 2023-Oct-02, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> +        if (!defined($tests{$test}->{like}))
> +        {
> +            diag "missing like in test \"$test\"";
> +        }
> +        if ($tests{$test}->{unlike}->{$test_key} &&
> +            !defined($tests{$test}->{like}->{$test_key}))
> +        {
> +            diag "useless unlike \"$test_key\" in test \"$test\"";
> +        }

I would add quotes to the words "like" and "unlike" there.  Otherwise,
these sentences are hard to parse.  Also, some commentary on what this
is about seems warranted: maybe "Check that this test properly defines
which dumps the output should match on." or similar.

I didn't like using diag(), because automated runs will not alert to any
problems.  Now maybe that's not critical, but I fear that people would
not notice problems if they are just noise in the output.  Let's make
them test errors.  fail() seems good enough: with the lines I quote
above and omitting the test corrections, I get this, which seems good
enough:

#   Failed test 'useless unlike "binary_upgrade" in test "Disabled trigger on partition is not created"'
#   at t/002_pg_dump.pl line 4960.

#   Failed test 'useless unlike "clean" in test "Disabled trigger on partition is not created"'
#   at t/002_pg_dump.pl line 4960.

[... a few others ...]

Test Summary Report
-------------------
t/002_pg_dump.pl            (Wstat: 15104 (exited 59) Tests: 11368 Failed: 59)
  Failed tests:  241, 486, 731, 1224, 1473, 1719, 1968, 2217
                2463, 2712, 2961, 3207, 3452, 3941, 4190
                4442, 4692, 4735-4736, 4943, 5094, 5189
                5242, 5341, 5436, 5681, 5926, 6171, 6660
                6905, 7150, 7395, 7640, 7683, 7762, 7887
                7930, 7941, 8134, 8187, 8229, 8287, 8626
                8871, 8924, 9023, 9170, 9269, 9457, 9515
                9704, 9762, 10345, 10886, 10985, 11105
                11123, 11134, 11327
  Non-zero exit status: 59
Files=5, Tests=11482, 15 wallclock secs ( 0.43 usr  0.04 sys +  4.56 cusr  1.63 csys =  6.66 CPU)
Result: FAIL


-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Ni aún el genio muy grande llegaría muy lejos
si tuviera que sacarlo todo de su propio interior" (Goethe)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher nodeHayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
Next
From: Gurjeet Singh
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC/RFC] Multiple passwords, interval expirations