On 06/29/2013 05:59 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Maybe there is a good case for these last two in a different set of tests.
> If we had a different set of tests, that would be a valid argument. But
> we don't, so it's not. And nobody has offered to write a feature to
> split our tests either.
>
> I have to say, I'm really surprised at the level of resistance people on
> this list are showing to the idea of increasing test coverage. I thought
> that Postgres was all about reliability? For a project as mature as we
> are, our test coverage is abysmal, and I think I'm starting to see why.
>
Dividing the tests into different sections is as simple as creating one
schedule file per section.
I'm not at all resistant to it. In fact, of someone wants to set up
separate sections and add new tests to the different sections I'll be
more than happy to provide buildfarm support for it. Obvious candidates
could include:
* code coverage * bugs * tests too big to run in everyday developer use
cheers
andrew
