On 03/06/25 02:48, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I don't like much the tests you are adding here. First, the
> cross-platform requirements to copy a library to the plugins/ folder
> is annoying. The actual issue is that we don't have an installation
> rule to be able to install a library to a plugins/ path to allow
> non-superusers to load it, no? I mean, as 4f7f7b037585 states, we
> have a `make install prefix=/else/where` but the TAP tests cannot
> shape a temporary installation with it. If we had something like that
> for meson and makefiles, we could then reuse EXTRA_INSTALL to force a
> library to exist where we want it to be, for the sake of testing
> coverage.
>
> I am not completely sure that the tests are completely waterproof,
> either. Some distributions like fancy installation folder layers,
> like Debian, and such things have proven to break these folk's tests.
> Having a centralized rule could be also useful for out-of-core
> extensions, to give these a way to install something inside a plugins/
> folder. At least that may be better than requiring pg_config to get
> the basic library install path.
>
> Second, requiring dummy_index_am inside the tests test_extensions is
> adding unwelcome complexity across the test modules.
>
I also don't like these tests, it has a lot of hacks as I've mentioned in
my first email and I'm almost sure that if we push this it will not work
on a lot of build farm animals. I just wrote these tests to make it
possible to reproduce the issue on my local machine and make the fix
easier, and I just shared here so that folks can also have a way to
reproduce the issue and maybe share other ideas to test this.
--
Matheus Alcantara
