On 08/10/2015 09:55 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> On 08/09/2015 08:58 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Sure. Attached is what I have in mind. Contrary to your version we
>>> keep around temp paths should a run succeed after one that has failed
>>> when running make check multiple times in a row. Perhaps it does not
>>> matter much in practice as log files get removed at each new run but I
>>> think that this allows a finer control in case of failure. Feel free
>>> to have a look.
>> Actually, I don't think this is a very good idea. You could end up with
>> a whole series of opaquely named directories from a series of failing
>> runs. If you want to keep the directory after a failure, and want to do
>> another run, then rename the directory. That's what you have to do with
>> the main regression tests, too. My version also has the benefit of
>> changing exactly 3 lines in the source :-)
> FWIW, I think we should keep the behavior of the TAP tests as close as
> possible to the established behavior of the main regression tests.
>
> It's certainly possible that there's room for improvement in that
> benchmark behavior. But let's first converge the test behaviors,
> and then have a discussion about whether we want changes, and if
> so change all the tests at the same time.
Yeah. To do that we should probably stop using File::Temp to make the
directory, and just use a hardcoded name given to File::Path::mkpath. If
the directory exists, we'd just remove it first.
That won't be a very big change - probably just a handful of lines.
cheers
andrew
