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
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
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
>>
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
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
>
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.
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
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
> >>
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
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
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,
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
12 matches
Mail list logo