Horton

Re: Making background psql nicer to use in tap tests

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-04-07T15:52:37Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2023-04-07 15:32:12 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> I don't think we should go ahead with a patch that refactors interactive_psql
>> only to SKIP over it in CI (which is what the tab_completion test does now), so
>> let's wait until we have that sorted before going ahead.

> Maybe I am a bit confused, but isn't that just an existing requirement? Why
> would we expect this patchset to change what dependencies use of
> interactive_psql() has?

It is an existing requirement, but only for a test that's not too
critical.  If interactive_psql starts getting used for more interesting
things, we might be sad that the coverage is weak.

Having said that, weak coverage is better than no coverage.  I don't
think this point should be a show-stopper for committing.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Fix missing installation/uninstallation rules for BackgroundPsql.pm

  2. Backport BackgroundPsql perl test module

  3. Add missing uninstallation rule for BackgroundPsql.pm

  4. Fix missing installation rules for BackgroundPsql.pm

  5. Skip \password TAP test on old IPC::Run versions

  6. Test SCRAM iteration changes with psql \password

  7. Refactor background psql TAP functions