On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 10:40 AM Bryan Green <dbryan.green@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/30/2025 3:37 AM, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2025-Oct-30, Jakub Wartak wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Bryan, cfbot is red. I'm was fan of having those tests for this
> >> (bring complexity and we didn't have tests for Linux backtrace
> >> anyway), but now MINGW win32 is failing on those tests where the
> >> feature is not present:
> >
> > I hate to say this after the code is written, but I think we should not
> > put any tests in the first step. I predict that these are going to be
> > enormously brittle and that we'll waste a lot of time making them
> > stable. I think we should commit the Windows support for backtraces
> > first, then consider whether we actually want TAP tests for the overall
> > feature. We've gone several years with glibc backtrace support without
> > any tests -- why do we think the Windows implementation thereof _must_
> > necessarily have them?
> >
> It will not bother me to remove them. It was my first effort at writing
> TAP tests, so it was a nice learning experience.
Well, that was a typo on my part (stupid me), I wanted to write: I was
NOT a fan of having those tests for this (in first place) - sorry for
confusion!
Anyway we have test because I think Michael and Euler triggered this
but earlier i've tried to persuade NOT to do this (see: `Also is it
worth it to test that setting backtrace_funciton=FOO really emits
.*FOO.* in log message cross-platform way?`), anyway Bryan implemented
this and it looks like v3 has just turned [gG]reen ;)
(https://cirrus-ci.com/build/6001832838823936)
-J.
