Re: [HACKERS] Thoughts on unit testing?

2017-08-25 Thread Chris Travers
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Torsten Zuehlsdorff < mailingli...@toco-domains.de> wrote: > > > On 13.08.2017 21:19, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Thomas Munro >> wrote: >> >>> The current regression tests, isolation tests and TAP

Re: [HACKERS] Thoughts on unit testing?

2017-08-24 Thread Torsten Zuehlsdorff
On 13.08.2017 21:19, Peter Geoghegan wrote: On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: The current regression tests, isolation tests and TAP tests are very good (though I admit my experience with TAP is limited), but IMHO we are lacking support for

Re: [HACKERS] Thoughts on unit testing?

2017-08-15 Thread Thomas Munro
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 14 August 2017 at 03:19, Peter Geoghegan wrote: >> It is my understanding that much of the benefit of unit testing comes >> from maintainability. It's something that goes well with design by >>

Re: [HACKERS] Thoughts on unit testing?

2017-08-13 Thread Craig Ringer
On 14 August 2017 at 03:19, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: > > The current regression tests, isolation tests and TAP tests are very > > good (though I admit my experience with TAP is limited), but IMHO

Re: [HACKERS] Thoughts on unit testing?

2017-08-13 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > The current regression tests, isolation tests and TAP tests are very > good (though I admit my experience with TAP is limited), but IMHO we > are lacking support for C-level unit testing. Complicated, fiddly >

Re: [HACKERS] Thoughts on unit testing?

2017-08-11 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 8/10/17 17:53, Thomas Munro wrote: >> The current regression tests, isolation tests and TAP tests are very >> good (though I admit my experience with TAP is limited), but IMHO we >> are lacking support for C-level unit testing.

Re: [HACKERS] Thoughts on unit testing?

2017-08-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 8/10/17 17:53, Thomas Munro wrote: > The current regression tests, isolation tests and TAP tests are very > good (though I admit my experience with TAP is limited), but IMHO we > are lacking support for C-level unit testing. Complicated, fiddly > things with many states, interactions, edge

Re: [HACKERS] Thoughts on unit testing?

2017-08-10 Thread Craig Ringer
On 11 August 2017 at 07:13, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Andres Freund > wrote: > > On 2017-08-11 09:53:23 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > >> One idea that keeps coming back to me is that we could probably extend > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Thoughts on unit testing?

2017-08-10 Thread Thomas Munro
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Just create a .test.c file and type "TEST(my_math, > factorial) { EXPECT_EQ(6, factorial(3)); }" ... Of course that would really need to #include "something/test_macros.h" and "something/factorial.h", and

Re: [HACKERS] Thoughts on unit testing?

2017-08-10 Thread Thomas Munro
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-08-11 09:53:23 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: >> One idea that keeps coming back to me is that we could probably extend >> our existing regression tests to cover C tests with automatic >> discovery/minimal

Re: [HACKERS] Thoughts on unit testing?

2017-08-10 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2017-08-11 09:53:23 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > The current regression tests, isolation tests and TAP tests are very > good(though I admit my experience with TAP is limited), but IMHO we > are lacking support for C-level unit testing. Complicated, fiddly > things with many states,

[HACKERS] Thoughts on unit testing?

2017-08-10 Thread Thomas Munro
Hi hackers, The current regression tests, isolation tests and TAP tests are very good (though I admit my experience with TAP is limited), but IMHO we are lacking support for C-level unit testing. Complicated, fiddly things with many states, interactions, edge cases etc can be hard to get full