On 04/21/2017 09:22 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > > On 22 Apr. 2017 4:23 am, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us > <mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com > <mailto:peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>> writes: > > On 4/21/17 14:49, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> I'll add a comment, but doing it in PostgresNode.pm would mean > jacana > >> (for instance) couldn't run any of the TAP tests. I'mm looking at > >> installing a sufficiently modern Test::Simple package (includes > >> Test::More and test::Build) there, but other oldish machines > could also > >> be affected. > > > Or you could define note() as an empty function if it doesn't exist. > > +1. I'm really not at all happy with the prospect that every time > somebody adds a use of "note" to some new TAP test, we're going to > get a complaint later that that test no longer works on jacana. > We need to either decide that non-ancient Test::More is a hard > requirement for all the tests > > > That seems like a no-brainer TBH. Why are we bothering with backwards > compat with ancient versions of test frameworks? It seems like a > colossal waste of time for no benefit. >
OK, I have pushed a requirement for a minimum version of Test::More into TestLib.pm, a better place for it than PostgresNode.pm as not all tests use the latter. jacana has been upgraded to use a sufficiently modern Test::More. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
