On 04/21/2017 09:22 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Apr. 2017 4:23 am, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
> <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com
> <mailto:peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>> writes:
> > On 4/21/17 14:49, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >> I'll add a comment, but doing it in PostgresNode.pm would mean
> jacana
> >> (for instance) couldn't run any of the TAP tests. I'mm looking at
> >> installing a sufficiently modern Test::Simple package (includes
> >> Test::More and test::Build) there, but other oldish machines
> could also
> >> be affected.
>
> > Or you could define note() as an empty function if it doesn't exist.
>
> +1. I'm really not at all happy with the prospect that every time
> somebody adds a use of "note" to some new TAP test, we're going to
> get a complaint later that that test no longer works on jacana.
> We need to either decide that non-ancient Test::More is a hard
> requirement for all the tests
>
>
> That seems like a no-brainer TBH. Why are we bothering with backwards
> compat with ancient versions of test frameworks? It seems like a
> colossal waste of time for no benefit.
>
OK, I have pushed a requirement for a minimum version of Test::More into
TestLib.pm, a better place for it than PostgresNode.pm as not all tests
use the latter.
jacana has been upgraded to use a sufficiently modern Test::More.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
