Re: bailing out in tap tests nearly always a bad idea - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: bailing out in tap tests nearly always a bad idea
Date
Msg-id 2744434.1644795179@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to bailing out in tap tests nearly always a bad idea  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: bailing out in tap tests nearly always a bad idea  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Re: bailing out in tap tests nearly always a bad idea  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Does anybody want to defend / explain the use of BAIL_OUT? If not, I think we
> should consider doing a global replace of the use of bailing.

+1

> Best with a
> central function signalling fatal error, rather than individual uses of die
> or such.

Huh, doesn't Test::More already provide a sane way to do this?
If not, why isn't die() good enough?  (I don't think you can
realistically expect to prohibit die() anywhere in the TAP tests.)

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: buildfarm warnings
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: xml_is_well_formed (was Re: buildfarm warnings)