On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
>
>> > The proposed code is short on guidance about when to put a function in TestLib
>> > versus TestBase. TestLib has no header comment. The TestBase header comment
>> > would permit, for example, command_ok() in that module. I would try instead
>> > keeping TestLib as the base module and moving into PostgresNode the functions
>> > that deal with PostgreSQL clusters (get_new_node teardown_node psql
>> > poll_query_until issues_sql_like).
>>
>> PostgresNode is wanted to be a base representation of how of node is,
>> not of how to operate on it. The ways to perform the tests, which
>> works on a node, is wanted as a higher-level operation.
>>
>> Logging and base configuration of a test set is a lower level of
>> operations than PostgresNode, because cluster nodes need actually to
>> perform system calls, some of those system calls like run_log allowing
>> to log in the centralized log file. I have tried to make the headers
>> of those modules more verbose, please see attached.
>
> I'm not terribly convinced by this argument TBH. Perhaps we can have
> PostgresNode be one package, and the logging routines be another
> package, and we create a higher-level package whose @ISA=(PostgresNode,
> LoggingWhatever) and then we move the routines suggested by Noah into
> that new package. Then the tests use that instead of PostgresNode
> directly.
OK... I have merged TestLib and PostgresNode of the previous patch
into PostgresNode into the way suggested by Noah. TestBase has been
renamed back to TestLib, and includes as well the base test functions
like command_ok.
Regards,
--
Michael
