On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:09:05AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Tue, 2013-08-27 at 09:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Boszormenyi Zoltan <z...@cybertec.at> writes: > > > When adding regression tests, can you please add intentional > > > syntax error cases to exercise all the new ereport()s? > > > > Please do not add test cases merely to prove that. Yeah, you should > > probably have exercised each error case in devel testing, but that does > > not mean that every future run of the regression tests needs to do it too. > > I disagree. The next person who wants to hack on this feature should be > given the confidence that he's not breaking behavior that the last guy > put in.
+1. I wouldn't make full error-outcome test coverage a condition of patch acceptance. However, when an author chooses to submit high-quality tests with that level of detail, our source tree is the place to archive them. I share Tom's desire for a Makefile target that completes quickly and checks only those behaviors most likely to break, but not at the cost of letting deep test coverage dissipate in a mailing list attachment or in the feature author's home directory. -- Noah Misch EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
