On 6 July 2013 20:25, Robins Tharakan thara...@gmail.com wrote:
Do let me know your view on this second point, so that I can remove these
tests if so required.
Hi,
Please find attached the updated patch.
It address the first issue regarding reducing the repeated CREATE / DROP
ROLEs.
It
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Robins Tharakan thara...@gmail.com wrote:
It still doesn't address the excessive (syntactical) checks tough. I am
still unclear as to how to identify which checks to skip. (As in, although I
have a personal preference of checking everything, my question
I simply don't understand how we can be getting any meaningful test
coverage out of those cases. I mean, if we want to check every bit of
syntax that could lead to a syntax error, we could probably come up
with a near-infinite number of test cases:
I think that it would be enough to check
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
I simply don't understand how we can be getting any meaningful test
coverage out of those cases. I mean, if we want to check every bit of
syntax that could lead to a syntax error, we could probably come up
with a
I think that it is not that simple: it is a good value to check that the
syntax error message conveys a useful information for the user, and that
changes to the parser rules do not alter good quality error messages.
It's good to check those things when a feature is implemented. However,
once
Generally, I think that the tests which return a syntax error are of
limited value and should probably be dropped.
I think that it is not that simple: it is a good value to check that the
syntax error message conveys a useful information for the user, and that
changes to the parser rules do
Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr writes:
Generally, I think that the tests which return a syntax error are of
limited value and should probably be dropped.
I think that it is not that simple: it is a good value to check that the
syntax error message conveys a useful information for the
On 2013-07-07 11:11:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr writes:
Generally, I think that the tests which return a syntax error are of
limited value and should probably be dropped.
I think that it is not that simple: it is a good value to check that the
syntax
However, before it can get committed, I think this set of tests needs
streamlining. It does seem to me valuable, but I think it's wasteful
in terms of runtime to create so many roles, do just one thing with
them, and then drop them. I recommend consolidating some of the
tests. For example:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
This updated version works for me and addresses previous comments.
I think that such tests are definitely valuable, especially as many corner
cases which must trigger errors are covered.
I recommend to apply it.
I'm
This updated version works for me and addresses previous comments.
I think that such tests are definitely valuable, especially as many corner
cases which must trigger errors are covered.
I recommend to apply it.
Please find an updated patch as per comments on Commitfest (comments
Hi,
Please find an updated patch as per comments on Commitfest (comments
replicated below for ease of understanding).
Feedback 1:
fc: role_ro2/3 used twice?
rt: Corrected in this update.
Feedback 2:
fc: I do not understand why asdf conveys anything about an expected
failure. Association of
Hi,
Please find attached a patch to take 'make check' code-coverage of ROLE
(USER) from 59% to 91%.
Any feedback is more than welcome.
--
Robins Tharakan
regress_user.patch
Description: Binary data
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
13 matches
Mail list logo
