Hi 2016-01-17 8:43 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>:
> > > 2016-01-12 17:27 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to>: > >> On 03/01/16 22:49, Jim Nasby wrote: >> >>> In the unit test, I'd personally prefer just building a table with the >>> test cases and the expected NULL/NOT NULL results, at least for all the >>> calls that would fit that paradigm. That should significantly reduce the >>> size of the test. Not a huge deal though... >>> >> >> I don't really see the point. "The size of the test" doesn't seem like a >> worthwhile optimization target, unless the test scripts are somehow really >> unnecessarily large. >> >> Further, if you were developing code related to this, previously you >> could just copy-paste the defective test case in order to easily reproduce >> a problem. But now suddenly you need a ton of different setup. >> >> I don't expect to really have a say in this, but I think the tests are >> now worse than they were before. >> > > the form of regress tests is not pretty significant issue. Jim's design is > little bit transparent, Marko's is maybe little bit practical. Both has > sense from my opinion, and any hasn't significant advantage against other. > any possible agreement, how these tests should be designed? simple patch, simple regress tests, so there are no reason for long waiting. Regards Pavel > Regards > > Pavel > > >> >> >> .m >> > >
