Re: TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-11-25 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/25/19 1:56 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: > > > On 11/25/19 5:08 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> On 11/11/19 4:28 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: >>> >>> >>> >> >> On further consideration, I'm wondering why we don't just >> unconditionally use a closed input pty for all these functions

Re: TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-11-25 Thread Mark Dilger
On 11/25/19 5:08 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 11/11/19 4:28 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: On further consideration, I'm wondering why we don't just unconditionally use a closed input pty for all these functions (except run_log). None of them use any input, and making the client worry about

Re: TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-11-25 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/11/19 4:28 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: > > > On further consideration, I'm wondering why we don't just unconditionally use a closed input pty for all these functions (except run_log). None of them use any input, and making the client worry about whether or not

Re: TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-11-11 Thread Mark Dilger
On 11/11/19 11:28 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 11/11/19 1:27 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: On 11/11/19 8:48 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 11/9/19 8:25 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: OK, I agree that we're getting rather baroque here. I could go with your suggestion of YA function, or possibly a

Re: TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-11-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/11/19 1:27 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: > > > On 11/11/19 8:48 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> On 11/9/19 8:25 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> OK, I agree that we're getting rather baroque here. I could go with >>> your >>> suggestion of YA function, or possibly a solution that simple passes >>>

Re: TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-11-11 Thread Mark Dilger
On 11/11/19 8:48 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 11/9/19 8:25 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: OK, I agree that we're getting rather baroque here. I could go with your suggestion of YA function, or possibly a solution that simple passes any extra arguments straight through to IPC::Run::run(), e.g.

Re: TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-11-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/9/19 8:25 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > OK, I agree that we're getting rather baroque here. I could go with your > suggestion of YA function, or possibly a solution that simple passes any > extra arguments straight through to IPC::Run::run(), e.g. > > command_fails_like( >   [ 'pg_dump',

Re: TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-11-09 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/8/19 4:40 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: > > > On 11/8/19 9:22 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > ... >> This will need to be rewritten in light of the above, but see >> >> > > Thanks for the reference.  Having

Re: TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-11-08 Thread Mark Dilger
On 11/8/19 9:22 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: ... This will need to be rewritten in light of the above, but see Thanks for the reference. Having read your motivating example, this new review reverses

Re: TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-11-08 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/8/19 11:25 AM, Mark Dilger wrote: > > > On 11/8/19 6:33 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> On 11/8/19 1:16 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: >>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 06:28, Mark Dilger >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/31/19 10:02 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>>

Re: TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-11-08 Thread Mark Dilger
On 11/8/19 6:33 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 11/8/19 1:16 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 06:28, Mark Dilger mailto:hornschnor...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 10/31/19 10:02 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > This small patch authored by my colleague Craig Ringer

Re: TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-11-08 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/8/19 1:16 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 06:28, Mark Dilger > wrote: > > > > On 10/31/19 10:02 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > This small patch authored by my colleague Craig Ringer enhances > > Testlib's

Re: TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-11-07 Thread Craig Ringer
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 06:28, Mark Dilger wrote: > > > On 10/31/19 10:02 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > This small patch authored by my colleague Craig Ringer enhances > > Testlib's command_fails_like by allowing the passing of extra keyword > > type arguments. The keyword initially recognized

Re: TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-11-07 Thread Mark Dilger
On 10/31/19 10:02 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: This small patch authored by my colleague Craig Ringer enhances Testlib's command_fails_like by allowing the passing of extra keyword type arguments. The keyword initially recognized is 'extra_ipcrun_opts'. The value for this keyword needs to be an

Re: TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-11-02 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 01:02:58PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > This small patch authored by my colleague Craig Ringer enhances > Testlib's command_fails_like by allowing the passing of extra keyword > type arguments. The keyword initially recognized is 'extra_ipcrun_opts'. > The value for this

TestLib::command_fails_like enhancement

2019-10-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
This small patch authored by my colleague Craig Ringer enhances Testlib's command_fails_like by allowing the passing of extra keyword type arguments. The keyword initially recognized is 'extra_ipcrun_opts'. The value for this keyword needs to be an array, and is passed through to the call to