Re: psql - improve test coverage from 41% to 88%

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