Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>> Isn't a full test with a separate initdb, create extension etc. a really
>> heavyhanded way to test this? I mean that's a test where the setup takes
>> up to 10s, whereas the actual runtime is in the millisecond range?
>
> I spent some time looking over this patch yesterday, and that was one
> concern I had too.  I was thinking that if we turn this into a single
> module that can contain several extensions, or several pg_dump-related
> tests, and then test multiple features without requiring an initdb for
> each, it would be more palatable.

Yeah sure. That's a statement you could generalize for all the TAP
tests, per se for example pg_rewind tests.

>> Adding tests in this manner doesn't seem scalable to me.
>
> I was thinking in having this be renamed src/test/modules/extensions/
> and then the extension contained here would be renamed ext001_fk_tables
> or something like that; later we could ext002_something for testing some
> other angle of extensions, not necessarily pg_dump related.

So, if I am following here correctly, what you are suggesting is:
1) create src/test/modules/extensions/, and include fk_tables in it for now
2) offer the possibility to run make check in this path, doing
complicated tests on a single instance, pg_dump on an instance is one
of them.
Note that for now the TAP test machinery does not allow to share a
single cluster instance across multiple pl scripts, and it seems to me
that's what you are meaning here (in my opinion that's out of sight of
this patch, and I don't think either we should do it this will make
error handling a nightmare). And we can now have a single TAP script
doing all the tests on a single instance. So which one are you
suggesting?

The patch proposed here is actually doing the second, initializing an
instance and performing pg_dump on it. If we change it your way we
should just rename the test script to something like
001_test_extensions.pl and mention in it that new tests for extensions
should be included in it. Still I would imagine that each extension
are actually going to need slightly differ test patterns to work or
cover what they are intended to cover. See for example the set of
tests added in the CREATE EXTENSION CASCADE patch: those are not
adapted to run with the TAP machinery. I may be of course wrong, we
may have other extensions in the future using that, still I am seeing
none around for now.

If you are worrying about run time, we could as well have make check
add an EXTRA_INSTALL pointing to src/test/modules/extensions/, with an
additional test, say extensions.sql that creates data based on it.
Then we let pg_upgrade do the dump/restore checks. This way the run
time of make check-world is minimally impacted, and the code paths we
want tested are done by the buildfarm. That's ugly, still it won't
impact performance.

>> I think we should rather add *one* test that does dump/restore over the
>> normal regression test database. Something similar to the pg_upgrade
>> tests. And then work at adding more content to the regression test
>> database - potentially sourcing from src/test/modules.
>
> That's another option, but we've had this idea for many years now and it
> hasn't materialized.  As I recall, Andrew Dunstan has a module that
> tests cross-version pg_upgrade and one thing he does is dump both and
> compare; the problem is that there are differences, so he keeps a count
> of how many lines he expect to differ between any two releases.  Or
> something like that.  While it's a good enough start, I don't think it's
> robust enough to be in core.  How would we do it?

That does not seem plausible to me for an integration in core, you
would need to keep switching between branches in a given git tree if
the test is being done within a git repository, and that would be just
not doable from a raw tarball which just stores one given version.
-- 
Michael