On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 04:37:58PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Interesting idea. For that the callback needs to know the injection
> point name. At least we should pass that to the callback. It's trivial
> thing to do.
This is what's done from the beginning, as well as of 0001 in the v5
series:
+INJECTION_POINT(name);
[...]
+ injection_callback(name);
> That might work, but in order to run tests in that directory one has
> to also install the extension. Do we have precedence for such kind of
> dependency?
Yes, please see EXTRA_INSTALL in some of the Makefiles. This can
install stuff from paths different than the location where the tests
are run.
>> and that there are no string objections, so feel free
>> to comment.
>
> Let's get some more opinions on the design. I will review the detailed
> code then.
Sure. Thanks.
>> I don't want to propose 0003 in the tree, just an improved version of
>> 0004 for the test coverage (still need to improve that).
>
> Are you working on v6 already?
No, what would be the point at this stage? I dont have much more to
add to 0001 and 0002 at the moment, which focus on the core of the
problem.
--
Michael