Thread: psql - improve test coverage from 41% to 88%
Hello devs, The attached patch improves psql code coverage by adding a specific TAP test. The 1709 tests take 4 seconds CPU (6.3 elapsed time) on my laptop. The infrastructure is updated to require perl module "Expect", allowing to test interactive features such as tab completion and prompt changes. Coverage in "src/bin/psql" jumps from 40.0% of lines and 41.9% of functions to 78.4% of lines and 98.1% of functions with "check-world". -- Fabien.
Attachment
Attached is a rebase after TestLib.pm got a documentation in 6fcc40b1. > The attached patch improves psql code coverage by adding a specific TAP test. > The 1709 tests take 4 seconds CPU (6.3 elapsed time) on my laptop. > > The infrastructure is updated to require perl module "Expect", allowing to > test interactive features such as tab completion and prompt changes. > > Coverage in "src/bin/psql" jumps from 40.0% of lines and 41.9% of functions > to 78.4% of lines and 98.1% of functions with "check-world". -- Fabien.
Attachment
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 08:06:43AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: > Attached is a rebase after TestLib.pm got a documentation in > 6fcc40b1. I am not completely sure what to think about this patch, but here are some high-level comments. +=item $node->icommand_checks(cmd, ...) + +=cut + +sub icommand_checks Surely this can have a better description, like say PostgresNode::command_checks_all. Is Expect compatible down to perl 5.8.0 which is the minimum required for the TAP tests (see src/test/perl/README)? There are cases where we don't support tab completion, aka no USE_READLINE. So tests would need to be skipped. - \a \C arg1 \c arg1 arg2 arg3 arg4 \cd arg1 \conninfo + \a + \C arg1 Why are you changing that? Your patch does not touch the logic of psql. Could it make sense as a separate patch to shape better the tests? --- a/src/bin/psql/describe.c +++ b/src/bin/psql/describe.c @@ -307,6 +307,7 @@ describeTablespaces(const char *pattern, bool verbose) * a for aggregates * n for normal + * p for procedure This is a separate issue, fixed. -- Michael
Attachment
Bonjour Michaël, > +=item $node->icommand_checks(cmd, ...) > + > +=cut > + > +sub icommand_checks > > Surely this can have a better description, like say > PostgresNode::command_checks_all. Ok. > Is Expect compatible down to perl 5.8.0 which is the minimum required > for the TAP tests (see src/test/perl/README)? I think so. It looks like this has existed for a very long time (22 years?), but I cannot test it simply against a perl 5.8. > There are cases where we don't support tab completion, aka no > USE_READLINE. So tests would need to be skipped. Good catch. I added a skip if it detects that history/readline is disabled. > - \a \C arg1 \c arg1 arg2 arg3 arg4 \cd arg1 \conninfo > + \a > + \C arg1 > Why are you changing that? AFAICR this is because the coverage was not the same:-) Some backslash commands just skip silently to the end of the line, so that intermediate \commands on the same line are not recognized/processed the same, so I moved everything on one line to avoid this. > Your patch does not touch the logic of psql. Could it make sense as a > separate patch to shape better the tests? Nope, this is not just reshaping, it is really about improving coverage. > --- a/src/bin/psql/describe.c > +++ b/src/bin/psql/describe.c > @@ -307,6 +307,7 @@ describeTablespaces(const char *pattern, bool > verbose) > * a for aggregates > * n for normal > + * p for procedure > This is a separate issue, fixed. Ok. Attached v3 which fixes the outlined issues. -- Fabien.
Attachment
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:52:01PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: > AFAICR this is because the coverage was not the same:-) Some backslash > commands just skip silently to the end of the line, so that intermediate > \commands on the same line are not recognized/processed the same, so I moved > everything on one line to avoid this. I see. So basically this tests for more code paths to ignore backslash commands and it improves the coverage of \elif. Applied after fixing two nits: - Indentation was incorrect. - Moved the \elif test closer to the existing one for the false branch (you can grep #2 to find it). -- Michael
Attachment
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:52:01PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: >> AFAICR this is because the coverage was not the same:-) Some backslash >> commands just skip silently to the end of the line, so that intermediate >> \commands on the same line are not recognized/processed the same, so I moved >> everything on one line to avoid this. > > I see. So basically this tests for more code paths to ignore > backslash commands and it improves the coverage of \elif. Applied > after fixing two nits: > - Indentation was incorrect. > - Moved the \elif test closer to the existing one for the false > branch (you can grep #2 to find it). Ok. Rebased version added, with some minor changes to improve readability (comments, variables). -- Fabien.
Attachment
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:56 AM Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:52:01PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >> AFAICR this is because the coverage was not the same:-) Some backslash
> >> commands just skip silently to the end of the line, so that intermediate
> >> \commands on the same line are not recognized/processed the same, so I moved
> >> everything on one line to avoid this.
> >
> > I see. So basically this tests for more code paths to ignore
> > backslash commands and it improves the coverage of \elif. Applied
> > after fixing two nits:
> > - Indentation was incorrect.
> > - Moved the \elif test closer to the existing one for the false
> > branch (you can grep #2 to find it).
>
> Ok. Rebased version added, with some minor changes to improve readability
> (comments, variables).
>
>
Few comments:
+sub create_test_file
+{
+ my ($fname, $contents) = @_;
+ my $fn = $node->basedir . '/' . $fname;
+ #ok(not -e $fn, "$fn must not already exists");
+ append_to_file($fn, $contents);
+ return $fn;
+}
Commented line can be removed
+# nope, interacts on tty
+#psql('-W', 0, "foo\n", [ qr{^$} ], [ qr{^$} ], 'psql -W');
+psql('-x', 0, "SELECT 1 AS one, 2 AS two;\n", [ qr{one \| 1.*two \|
2}s ], $EMPTY, 'psql -x');
+# some issue, \0 is not welcome somewhere
+#psql('-A -z', "SELECT 1 AS one, 2 AS two;\n", [ qr{one.two}s,
qr{1.2}s ], $EMPTY, 'psql -z');
+#psql('-A -0', "SELECT 1 AS one, 2 AS two;\n", [ qr{two.1}s ],
$EMPTY, 'psql -0');
+psql('-1', 0, "SELECT 54;\nSELECT 32;\n", [ qr{54}, qr{32} ], $EMPTY,
'psql -1');
Commented lines can be removed
+ [ "\\lo_list\n", [ qr{Large objects} ] ],
+ [ "\\if true\\q\\endif\n", $EMPTY ],
+ # ???
+ #[ "SELECT md5('hello world');\n\\s\n", [ qr{5eb63bbbe0}, qr{SELECT md5} ] ],
+ [ "\\set\n", [ qr{ENCODING = }, qr{VERSION_NUM = } ] ],
+ [ "\\set COMP_KEYWORD_CASE preserve-lower\n\\set COMP_KEYWORD_CASE lower\n" .
#[ "Select"] commented line can be removed
??? can be changed to some suitable heading
+psql('', 0, "\\s /dev/null\n", $EMPTY, $EMPTY, 'psql \s null');
+
+# tab-complation
+ipsql('-P pager', 0, 5,
+ [ # commands
tab-complation to be changed to tab-completion
+ # but the coverage works as expected.
+ #[ "CREATE \t", qr/i(MATERIALIZED VIEW.*postgres=\# )?/s ],
+ #[ "\\r\n", qr/Query buffer reset.*postgres=\# /s ],
+ [ "CREATE \t\\r\n", qr/Query buffer reset.*postgres=\# /s ],
+ #[ "DROP \t", qr/(UNLOGGED.*postgres=\# )?/s ],
+ #[ "\\r\n", qr/Query buffer reset.*postgres=\# /s ],
+ [ "DROP \t\\r\n", qr/Query buffer reset.*postgres=\# /s ],
+ #[ "ALTER \t", qr/(TABLESPACE.*postgres=\# )/s ],
+ #[ "\\r\n", qr/Query buffer reset.*postgres=\# /s ],
Commented lines can be removed, some more are present below these lines also.
Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> Ok. Rebased version added, with some minor changes to improve readability >> (comments, variables). > > Few comments: [...] > > Commented line can be removed > Commented lines can be removed > ??? can be changed to some suitable heading > tab-complation to be changed to tab-completion > Commented lines can be removed, some more are present below these lines also. Thanks for this review. The lines were really tests I did that had some issues because of the way the Expect module works, and are not useful for inclusion in the code base. Here is a v5. -- Fabien Coelho - CRI, MINES ParisTech
Attachment
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:15 PM Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
>
>
> >> Ok. Rebased version added, with some minor changes to improve readability
> >> (comments, variables).
> >
> > Few comments: [...]
> >
> > Commented line can be removed
> > Commented lines can be removed
> > ??? can be changed to some suitable heading
> > tab-complation to be changed to tab-completion
> > Commented lines can be removed, some more are present below these lines also.
>
> Thanks for this review.
>
> The lines were really tests I did that had some issues because of the way
> the Expect module works, and are not useful for inclusion in the code
> base.
>
> Here is a v5.
Few more in icommand_checks subroutine:
+
+ #$ps->slave->stty(qw(raw -echo));
+ $ps->slave->stty(qw(raw));
+ my $n = 0;
+ for my $test (@$inout)
+ {
+ #warn "test: @$test";
+ my ($in, @out) = @$test;
+ $n++;
+ #warn "in: $in";
+ #warn "out: @out";
+ $ps->send($in);
Few unwanted code can be removed.
Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>> Here is a v5. > Few more in icommand_checks subroutine: > Few unwanted code can be removed. Indeed, more debug and test code. Attached v6 fixes these, and I checked for remaining scrubs without finding any. -- Fabien.
Attachment
I think the TestLib.pm changes should be done separately, not together with the rest of the hacking in this patch. Mostly, because I think they're going to cause trouble. Adding a parameter in the middle of the list may cause trouble for third-party users of TestLib. I propose that we make the routines a bit smarter to cope with the API change: use named parameters instead. And in order to do that without having to change existing users of command_check, make it so that the routine checks whether the parameter is a hashref, and behave differently. So when called as in the existing callsites (five scalar paramters) it behaves as currently. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:14:16PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Mostly, because I think they're going to cause trouble. Adding a > parameter in the middle of the list may cause trouble for third-party > users of TestLib. I propose that we make the routines a bit smarter to > cope with the API change: use named parameters instead. And in order to > do that without having to change existing users of command_check, make > it so that the routine checks whether the parameter is a hashref, and > behave differently. So when called as in the existing callsites (five > scalar parameters) it behaves as currently. +1. -- Michael
Attachment
On 2019-Sep-13, Fabien COELHO wrote: > Hello Alvaro, > > > I think the TestLib.pm changes should be done separately, not together > > with the rest of the hacking in this patch. > > > > Mostly, because I think they're going to cause trouble. Adding a > > parameter in the middle of the list may cause trouble for third-party > > users of TestLib. > > That is also what I thought, however, see below. I see. But you seem to have skipped my suggestion without considering it. I think the current API of these functions where they just receive a plain array of arguments, and all callers have to be patched in unison, is not very convenient. Also, I *think* your new icommand_checks method is the same as command_checks_all, except that you also have the "init" part. So you're duplicating code because the original doesn't have functionality you need? But why do that, if you could have *one* function that does both things? If some callers don't have the "init" part, just omit it from the parameters. (Whether it's implemented using Expect or not should not matter. Either Expect works everywhere, and we can use it, or it doesn't and we can't.) -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Hello Alvaro, >>> I think the TestLib.pm changes should be done separately, not together >>> with the rest of the hacking in this patch. >>> >>> Mostly, because I think they're going to cause trouble. Adding a >>> parameter in the middle of the list may cause trouble for third-party >>> users of TestLib. >> >> That is also what I thought, however, see below. > > I see. But you seem to have skipped my suggestion without considering > it. I did understand it, but as Tom did not want simple hocus-pocus, ISTM that dynamically checking the argument type would not be considered a very good idea either. > I think the current API of these functions where they just receive a > plain array of arguments, and all callers have to be patched in unison, > is not very convenient. I agree, but the no diff solution was rejected. I can bring one back, but going against Tom's views has not proven a good move in the past. > Also, I *think* your new icommand_checks method is the same as > command_checks_all, except that you also have the "init" part. Nope, it is an interactive version based on Expect, which sends input and waits for output, the process is quite different from a simple one shot no timeout exec version. > So you're duplicating code because the original doesn't have > functionality you need? Yes, I'm creating a interactive validation variant. > But why do that, if you could have *one* function that does both things? > If some callers don't have the "init" part, just omit it from the > parameters. Although it could be abstracted somehow, I do not think that having one function behaving so differently under the hood is a good idea. It is not just the question of the init part. > (Whether it's implemented using Expect or not should not matter. Either > Expect works everywhere, and we can use it, or it doesn't and we can't.) For me the question is not about Expect dependency, it is more about how the test behaves. -- Fabien.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 4:49 PM Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
>
>
> >> Here is a v5.
>
> > Few more in icommand_checks subroutine:
> > Few unwanted code can be removed.
>
> Indeed, more debug and test code.
>
> Attached v6 fixes these, and I checked for remaining scrubs without
> finding any.
>
Few comments:
+ [ 'START TRANSACTION', [ qr{ISOLATION LEVEL}, qr{(?!BEGIN)} ] ],
+ [ 'TABLE', [ qr{ONLY} ] ], # hmmm...
+ [ 'TRUNCATE', [ qr{CONTINUE IDENTITY} ] ],
+ [ 'UNLISTEN', [ ] ],
We can remove # hmmm... if not required
+ [ 'UPDATE', [ qr{RETURNING} ] ],
+ [ 'VACUUM', [ qr{FREEZE} ] ],
+ [ 'VALUES', [ qr{ORDER BY} ] ],
+ [ 'WITH', [ qr{RECURSIVE} ] ], # SELECT duplicate?
+);
We can remove # SELECT duplicate? if not required
+
+psql('--log-file=/dev/null', 0, "SELECT 5432 AS pg\n",
+ [ qr/\b5432\b/ ], $EMPTY, 'psql -L null');
+
+psql('', 0, "\\copy public.regress_psql_tap_1_t1(data) FROM PROGRAM
'echo moe'\n",
+ [ qr/COPY 1\b/ ], $EMPTY, 'psql copy echo');
+psql('', 0, "\\copy public.regress_psql_tap_1_t1(data) TO PROGRAM 'cat'\n",
+ [ qr/COPY 1\b/ ], $EMPTY, 'psql copy cat'); # :-)
+
+END_UNIX_ZONE:
We can remove # :-) if not required
Regards,
Vignesh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hi Fabien,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 04:48:06PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> Few comments:
> + [ 'START TRANSACTION', [ qr{ISOLATION LEVEL}, qr{(?!BEGIN)} ] ],
> + [ 'TABLE', [ qr{ONLY} ] ], # hmmm...
> + [ 'TRUNCATE', [ qr{CONTINUE IDENTITY} ] ],
> + [ 'UNLISTEN', [ ] ],
>
> We can remove # hmmm... if not required
>
> + [ 'UPDATE', [ qr{RETURNING} ] ],
> + [ 'VACUUM', [ qr{FREEZE} ] ],
> + [ 'VALUES', [ qr{ORDER BY} ] ],
> + [ 'WITH', [ qr{RECURSIVE} ] ], # SELECT duplicate?
> +);
>
> We can remove # SELECT duplicate? if not required
>
> +
> +psql('--log-file=/dev/null', 0, "SELECT 5432 AS pg\n",
> + [ qr/\b5432\b/ ], $EMPTY, 'psql -L null');
> +
> +psql('', 0, "\\copy public.regress_psql_tap_1_t1(data) FROM PROGRAM
> 'echo moe'\n",
> + [ qr/COPY 1\b/ ], $EMPTY, 'psql copy echo');
> +psql('', 0, "\\copy public.regress_psql_tap_1_t1(data) TO PROGRAM 'cat'\n",
> + [ qr/COPY 1\b/ ], $EMPTY, 'psql copy cat'); # :-)
> +
> +END_UNIX_ZONE:
>
> We can remove # :-) if not required
Please note that you have received comments on this patch a couple of
weeks ago. The patch was still marked as "needs review", which was
incorrect, and it does not apply. Perhaps you did not notice it, so I
am moving it to next CF, waiting on author for a rebase and for
replies on those comments.
--
Michael
Attachment
Bonjour Michaël, > Please note that you have received comments on this patch a couple of > weeks ago. The patch was still marked as "needs review", which was > incorrect, and it does not apply. Perhaps you did not notice it, so I > am moving it to next CF, waiting on author for a rebase and for > replies on those comments. Indeed, I did not notice. Attached a rebase, which also removes the 3 comments pointed out by Vignesh. -- Fabien.
Attachment
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:14:16AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote: > Indeed, I did not notice. Thanks, Fabien! -- Michael
Attachment
Hi Fabien, On 11/27/19 11:01 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:14:16AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote: >> Indeed, I did not notice. This patch no longer applies: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_27_2262.log CF entry has been updated to Waiting on Author. Regards, -- -David david@pgmasters.net
> On 24 Mar 2020, at 15:47, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote: > This patch no longer applies: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_27_2262.log > > CF entry has been updated to Waiting on Author. This patch hasn't been updated and still doesn't apply, do you intend to rebase it during this commitfest or should we move it to returned with feedback? It can always be re-opened at a later date. cheers ./daniel
> On 5 Jul 2020, at 13:38, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote: > >> On 24 Mar 2020, at 15:47, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote: > >> This patch no longer applies: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_27_2262.log >> >> CF entry has been updated to Waiting on Author. > > This patch hasn't been updated and still doesn't apply, do you intend to rebase > it during this commitfest or should we move it to returned with feedback? It > can always be re-opened at a later date. As the thread has stalled, I've marked this Returned with Feedback. cheers ./daniel
Hello, >>> This patch no longer applies: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_27_2262.log >>> >>> CF entry has been updated to Waiting on Author. >> >> This patch hasn't been updated and still doesn't apply, do you intend to rebase >> it during this commitfest or should we move it to returned with feedback? It >> can always be re-opened at a later date. > > As the thread has stalled, I've marked this Returned with Feedback. Hmmm. AFAICR the feedback is that the Expect perl module is not welcome, which seems to suggest that it would have to be re-implemented somehow. This is not my dev philosophy, I won't do that, so I'm sorry to say that psql coverage will remain pretty abysmal. Sigh. -- Fabien.
> On 1 Aug 2020, at 09:06, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: > > Hello, > >>>> This patch no longer applies: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_27_2262.log >>>> >>>> CF entry has been updated to Waiting on Author. >>> >>> This patch hasn't been updated and still doesn't apply, do you intend to rebase >>> it during this commitfest or should we move it to returned with feedback? It >>> can always be re-opened at a later date. >> >> As the thread has stalled, I've marked this Returned with Feedback. > > Hmmm. > > AFAICR the feedback is that the Expect perl module is not welcome, which seems to suggest that it would have to be re-implementedsomehow. This is not my dev philosophy, I won't do that, so I'm sorry to say that psql coverage will remainpretty abysmal. Re-reading this thread, I see no complaints about introducing a dependency on Expect. The feedback returned in this case is that the patch hasn't applied since March, and that the patch is more than welcome to be re-entered in the next CF once it does. cheers ./daniel
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
> On 1 Aug 2020, at 09:06, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
>> AFAICR the feedback is that the Expect perl module is not welcome, which seems to suggest that it would have to be
re-implementedsomehow. This is not my dev philosophy, I won't do that, so I'm sorry to say that psql coverage will
remainpretty abysmal.
> Re-reading this thread, I see no complaints about introducing a dependency on
> Expect. The feedback returned in this case is that the patch hasn't applied
> since March, and that the patch is more than welcome to be re-entered in the
> next CF once it does.
Personally, I'd object to introducing a hard dependency on Expect, as
there are no doubt a lot of developers and buildfarm members who don't
have that installed. But I see no reason we couldn't skip some tests
if it's lacking, as we're already doing with IO::Pty in
010_tab_completion.pl.
That does raise the question of whether Expect makes things enough
easier than raw IO::Pty that it's worth adding that dependency (and
hence foregoing the tests on some machines). But I'm prepared to be
convinced on that point.
regards, tom lane
On 8/1/20 5:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes: >> On 1 Aug 2020, at 09:06, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: >>> AFAICR the feedback is that the Expect perl module is not welcome, which seems to suggest that it would have to be re-implementedsomehow. This is not my dev philosophy, I won't do that, so I'm sorry to say that psql coverage will remainpretty abysmal. >> Re-reading this thread, I see no complaints about introducing a dependency on >> Expect. The feedback returned in this case is that the patch hasn't applied >> since March, and that the patch is more than welcome to be re-entered in the >> next CF once it does. > Personally, I'd object to introducing a hard dependency on Expect, as > there are no doubt a lot of developers and buildfarm members who don't > have that installed. But I see no reason we couldn't skip some tests > if it's lacking, as we're already doing with IO::Pty in > 010_tab_completion.pl. > > That does raise the question of whether Expect makes things enough > easier than raw IO::Pty that it's worth adding that dependency (and > hence foregoing the tests on some machines). But I'm prepared to be > convinced on that point. > > +1. Also note that the Windows animals don't and probably will never support Expect, since Windows doesn't have PTYs. Expect.pm is in fact a pure perl module that sits on top of IO::Pty, which in turn sits on top of IO::Tty. So if you have those Expect.pm probably isn't a huge stretch. But let's not add a dependency if we can avoid it. And if we do add one it will need to be a soft one like the case you mentioned. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 11:10:23AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > +1. Also note that the Windows animals don't and probably will never > support Expect, since Windows doesn't have PTYs. Expect.pm is in fact a > pure perl module that sits on top of IO::Pty, which in turn sits on top > of IO::Tty. So if you have those Expect.pm probably isn't a huge > stretch. But let's not add a dependency if we can avoid it. And if we do > add one it will need to be a soft one like the case you mentioned. Even with that, do we really care about some code coverage specific to Windows for tab-complete.c? Also, how complicated does the proposed patch become if we remove the dependency to Expect.pm and just rely on IO::Pty? -- Michael
Attachment
> Re-reading this thread, I see no complaints about introducing a > dependency on Expect. Indeed, Tom's complaint was on another thread, possibly when interactive tests "src/bin/psql/t/010_tab_completion.pl" were added. ISTM that one of the issue was that some farm animal would be broken. I'm quite lost about Expect portability discussion wrt windows, it is unclear to me whether it is expected to work there or not. As I stated, I do not like re-inventing the wheel, probably quite badly, when someone else already did a good job. -- Fabien.
On 8/3/20 3:34 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>
> I'm quite lost about Expect portability discussion wrt windows, it is
> unclear to me whether it is expected to work there or not.
Sorry if I was unclear. Expect will not work on Windows. Nor will use of
IO::Pty or IO::Tty, which are what Expect uses under the hood. So use
of any of that needs to be done just as it is done on
010_tab_completion.pl, i.e.
eval { require IO::Pty; };
if ($@)
{
plan skip_all => 'IO::Pty is needed to run this test';
}
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services