Re: pg_waldump: add test for coverage

On 23.08.22 03:50, Dong Wook Lee wrote:
> Hi Hackers,
> I wrote a test for coverage.
> Unfortunately, it seems to take quite a while to run the test.
> I want to improve these execution times, but I don't know exactly what to do.
> Therefore, I want to hear feedback from many people.

I don't find these tests to be particularly slow.  How long do they take 
for you to run?

A couple of tips:

- You should give each test a name.  That's why each test function has a 
(usually) last argument that takes a string.

- You could use command_like() to run a command and check that it exits 
successfully and check its standard out.  For example, instead of

# test pg_waldump with -F (main)
IPC::Run::run [ 'pg_waldump', "$wal_dump_path", '-F', 'main' ], '>', 
\$stdout, '2>', \$stderr;
isnt($stdout, '', "");

it is better to write

command_like([ 'pg_waldump', "$wal_dump_path", '-F', 'main' ],
              qr/TODO/, 'test -F (main)');

- It would be useful to test the actual output (that is, fill in the 
TODO above).  I don't know what the best way to do that is -- that is 
part of designing these tests.

Also,

- Your patch introduces a spurious blank line at the end of the test file.

- For portability, options must be before non-option arguments.  So 
instead of

[ 'pg_waldump', "$wal_dump_path", '-F', 'main' ]

it should be

[ 'pg_waldump', '-F', 'main', "$wal_dump_path" ]


I think having some more test coverage for pg_waldump would be good, so 
I encourage you to continue working on this.