Thread: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add TAP tests for client programs
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Add TAP tests for client programs
I assume the buildfarm would need to be taught about this?
regards, tom lane
On 04/14/2014 10:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >> Add TAP tests for client programs > I assume the buildfarm would need to be taught about this? > > Yes. It probably won't be a huge change, but it will need a bit of code. cheers andrew
On 04/14/2014 10:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 04/14/2014 10:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >>> Add TAP tests for client programs >> I assume the buildfarm would need to be taught about this? >> >> > > > Yes. It probably won't be a huge change, but it will need a bit of code. > > And it won't work on most or all Windows machines, since they almost certainly won't have IPC::Run installed. That's *very* annoying. cheers andrew
On 4/14/14, 10:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 04/14/2014 10:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >>> Add TAP tests for client programs >> I assume the buildfarm would need to be taught about this? >> >> > > > Yes. It probably won't be a huge change, but it will need a bit of code. It might be more future-proof if the build farm just called make check-world and used some other way to identify the individual tests in that output. Otherwise, we'll need a new build farm release every time a test suite is added.
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On 4/14/14, 10:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Yes. It probably won't be a huge change, but it will need a bit of code.
> It might be more future-proof if the build farm just called make
> check-world and used some other way to identify the individual tests in
> that output. Otherwise, we'll need a new build farm release every time
> a test suite is added.
That argument would be more convincing if "make check-world" worked
on Windows ...
regards, tom lane
On 4/15/14, 11:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >> On 4/14/14, 10:30 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> Yes. It probably won't be a huge change, but it will need a bit of code. > >> It might be more future-proof if the build farm just called make >> check-world and used some other way to identify the individual tests in >> that output. Otherwise, we'll need a new build farm release every time >> a test suite is added. > > That argument would be more convincing if "make check-world" worked > on Windows ... What about it doesn't work on Windows?