On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 11:27 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > On 2025/02/28 9:24, Ryo Kanbayashi wrote: > > I have rewrote my patch on TAP test sttyle :) > > File for build are also updated. > > Thanks for updating the patch!
Thanks for review:)
>
> + 'tests': [
> + 't/001_ecpg_notice.pl',
> + 't/002_ecpg_notice_informix.pl',
>
> Since neither test emits "notice" messages, shouldn't the test file
> names be revised to reflect this?
I replaced "notice" to "err_warn_msg"
> Also, I'm unsure if it's ideal to place input files directly under
> the "t" directory. I looked for similar TAP tests with input files,
> but I couldn't find any examples to guide this decision...
I couldn't too. So places are not changed.
> +program_help_ok('ecpg');
> +program_version_ok('ecpg');
> +program_options_handling_ok('ecpg');
> +command_fails(['ecpg'], 'ecpg without arguments fails');
>
> These checks seem unnecessary in 002 since they're already covered in 001.
I reflected above.
---
Great regards,
Ryo Kanbayashi
ecpg-notice-regress-patch-tap-ver-rebased.patch
Description: Binary data
