On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 10:40 AM Bryan Green <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 10/30/2025 3:37 AM, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > > On 2025-Oct-30, Jakub Wartak wrote: > > > >> Hi Bryan, cfbot is red. I'm was fan of having those tests for this > >> (bring complexity and we didn't have tests for Linux backtrace > >> anyway), but now MINGW win32 is failing on those tests where the > >> feature is not present: > > > > I hate to say this after the code is written, but I think we should not > > put any tests in the first step. I predict that these are going to be > > enormously brittle and that we'll waste a lot of time making them > > stable. I think we should commit the Windows support for backtraces > > first, then consider whether we actually want TAP tests for the overall > > feature. We've gone several years with glibc backtrace support without > > any tests -- why do we think the Windows implementation thereof _must_ > > necessarily have them? > > > It will not bother me to remove them. It was my first effort at writing > TAP tests, so it was a nice learning experience.
Well, that was a typo on my part (stupid me), I wanted to write: I was NOT a fan of having those tests for this (in first place) - sorry for confusion! Anyway we have test because I think Michael and Euler triggered this but earlier i've tried to persuade NOT to do this (see: `Also is it worth it to test that setting backtrace_funciton=FOO really emits .*FOO.* in log message cross-platform way?`), anyway Bryan implemented this and it looks like v3 has just turned [gG]reen ;) (https://cirrus-ci.com/build/6001832838823936) -J.
