Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 01:33:58PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > Thanks for your feedback! set_masklen(inet) could be covered for the -1 case, and it was missing in the patch submitted. For consistency with the other queries, moving the call of abbrev(inet) with the existing abbrev(cidr) ma

Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

Hi, > The correct version is as follows. > > make installcheck-world: tested, passed > Implements feature: tested, passed > Spec compliant: tested, passed > Documentation: tested, passed Thanks for your feedback! > About the tests pushed to the SSL test suite, I'm +-0. 003_sslinfo.pl > is a bit

Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: > make installcheck-world: tested, failed > Implements feature: tested, failed > Spec compliant: tested, failed > Documentation:tested, failed Sorry, I thought I checked with the commitfest App,

Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 07:24:38AM +, keisuke kuroda wrote: > I have confirmed that the coverage improves > to the expected value（69.7%->83.0%) > > source: commit 75eb9766ec201b62f264554019757716093e2a2f(HEAD) > ## add with-openssl option for ssltest > ./configure --enable-coverage --enable-t

Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, failed Implements feature: tested, failed Spec compliant: tested, failed Documentation:tested, failed Thank you for your patch! I have confirmed that the coverage

Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

Hi everyone, Many thanks for all your great feedback. > In any case, Aleksander, I don't mean to sign you up for all that; the > `ssl` suite also seems good enough to me if you're interested in > pursuing that side of the patch further. OK, I moved the named tests to src/test/ssl/t/003_sslinfo.p

Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 12:27 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Part of my thought here is that these functions are not worth their > very own TAP test, with all the overhead that implies of firing up > a new database instance. So I was looking for something we could > fold them into. By themselves, yeah, pr

Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

Jacob Champion writes: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 11:35 AM Tom Lane wrote: >> Maybe we could add this to the existing src/test/ssl/ tests, >> which already deal with that hazard? > That seems okay in the short term. (But it certainly highlights our > lack of a "PG_TEST_EXTRA=loopback-is-fine" mod

Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 11:35 AM Tom Lane wrote: > To do anything interesting, the test would have to make the server > open a TCP port, which would be rightly seen as a security hazard. > So it'd have to be confined to a not-run-by-default test case. Yeah. > Maybe we could add this to the exist

Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

Jacob Champion writes: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 9:30 AM Aleksander Alekseev > wrote: >> Recently I played with lcov [1]. In the process it was discovered that >> the following functions are not executed by our tests: >> >> - abbrev(inet) >> - set_masklen(cidr,int4) >> - netmask(inet) >> - hostm

Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 9:30 AM Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > Recently I played with lcov [1]. In the process it was discovered that > the following functions are not executed by our tests: > > - abbrev(inet) > - set_masklen(cidr,int4) > - netmask(inet) > - hostmask(inet) The new tests for the fir

Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

I could not send it to the mailing list, so I'm resending it. ___ Hi Aleksander, I have tested your patch. I have confirmed that the coverage improves to the expected value（69.8%->80.1%) Your patch looks good to me. ## test and make coverage source: commit 9a45a89c38f3257b13e09edf382e32fa28b918c

Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

Hi Stepan, > Hello Aleksander! I'm a beginner and I would like to see and try your patch. > However, I have never worked with coverage in regression tests for > PostgreSQL. Could you please tell me how it works and help me understand the > process? Thanks! You are going to need some Linux dist

Re: [PATCH] Improve code coverage of network address functions

Hello Aleksander! I'm a beginner and I would like to see and try your patch. However, I have never worked with coverage in regression tests for PostgreSQL. Could you please tell me how it works and help me understand the process? Thanks! Best Regards, Stepan Neretin!