On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 9:29 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 8:05 PM John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 8:39 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As I mentioned above, if we implement the test cases in C, we can use
> > > the debug-build array in the test code. And we won't use it in AND/OR
> > > operations tests in the future.
> >
> > That's a really interesting idea, so I went ahead and tried that for
> > v71. This seems like a good basis for testing larger, randomized
> > inputs, once we decide how best to hide that from the expected output.
> > The tests use SQL functions do_set_block_offsets() and
> > check_set_block_offsets(). The latter does two checks against a tid
> > array, and replaces test_dump_tids().
>
> Great! I think that's a very good starter.
>
> The lookup_test() (and test_lookup_tids()) do also test that the
> IsMember() function returns false as expected if the TID doesn't exist
> in it, and probably we can do these tests in a C function too.
>
> BTW do we still want to test the tidstore by using a combination of
> SQL functions? We might no longer need to input TIDs via a SQL
> function.
I'm not sure. I stopped short of doing that to get feedback on this
much. One advantage with SQL functions is we can use generate_series
to easily input lists of blocks with different numbers and strides,
and array literals for offsets are a bit easier. What do you think?
