Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_dump

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> >> > * Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) wrote:
> >> >> Looks like the test_pg_dump extension made the Windows builds upset.
> >> >> I'm guessing that's because I set 'MODULES_big' even though there isn't
> >> >> a .c component.
> >> >>
> >> >> Doing a local build with that commented out, assuming that works and
> >> >> doesn't generate the .so any more on my Linux box, I'll push the change
> >> >> up to hopefully fix those buildfarm members.
> >>
> >> > Alright, apparently that made other Windows buildfarm members unhappy...
> >>
> >> > I guess the next approach will be to add back MODULES_big and add in a
> >> > .c file for the Windows systems to be happy about.  I'm certainly open
> >> > to other suggestions.
> >>
> >> You should not need to do that; cf src/test/modules/test_extensions,
> >> which has got SQL-only extensions.
> >
> > test_extensions is also included in the "contrib_excludes" list in
> > src/tools/msvc/Mkvcbuild.pm that I mentioned in my last email, so I'm
> > thinking that's what is needed.
> >
> >> But at this point I think Peter's complaint has some force to it, and that
> >> what you ought to do is revert the testing patch.  You can have another go
> >> after beta1.
> >
> > Are you suggesting commiting to still-9.6-HEAD post-beta1?  I took
> > Peter's comment as suggesting that adding the tests would have to wait
> > til after we branched 9.6, as we do for features.
> >
> > I'd really like to have these tests included as that will make them
> > available to others more easily to add on to, and I'm certainly planning
> > to continue adding tests until I get pg_dump.c's coverage a lot better.
> > That seems like the perfect kind of effort that should be happening
> > right now- adding more tests and working to make sure that what's been
> > committed is correct (and fixing it when it isn't, as discovered by the
> > test suite with transforms and casts...).
>
> I think what he's suggesting right now is that you revert the patch
> that is turning the BF red right before beta.  We can iron out what
> else to do later.

Alright, I'll revert the TAP tests and we can discuss what to do next
post-beta1.  At least a few runs got in and looked clean, other than the
Windows issue with the extension building.

Thanks!

Stephen