Re: More business with $Test::Builder::Level in the TAP tests - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: More business with $Test::Builder::Level in the TAP tests
Date
Msg-id YWLL9EYFMDP3MKQc@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: More business with $Test::Builder::Level in the TAP tests  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: More business with $Test::Builder::Level in the TAP tests
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 12:14:57PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I think we need to be more explicit about it, especially w.r.t. indirect
> calls. Every subroutine in the call stack below where you want to error
> reported as coming from should contain this line.

Hmm.  I got to think about that for a couple of days, and the
simplest, still the cleanest, phrasing I can come up with is that:
This should be incremented by any subroutine part of a stack calling
test routines from Test::More, like ok() or is().

Perhaps you have a better suggestion?
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Time to upgrade buildfarm coverage for some EOL'd OSes?