Re: how to handle missing "prove"

On 10/28/2014 09:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut  writes:
>> Here is a patch to use "missing" to handle the case when "prove" is not
>> present.
> Wouldn't it be easier to do what we do for Perl, viz in Makefile.global.in
>
> ifneq (@PERL@,)
>      # quoted to protect pathname with spaces
>      PERL		= '@PERL@'
> else
>      PERL		= $(missing) perl
> endif
>
> However, with either of these approaches, "make check-world" gets a hard
> failure if you lack "prove".  Is that what we want?  It's certainly not
> very consistent with what you've been doing to make the tests just slide
> by (rather than fail on) missing/too old Perl modules.
>
> ISTM that the project policy for external components like this has been
> "don't rely on them unless user says to use them, in which case fail if
> they aren't present".  So perhaps what we ought to have is a configure
> switch along the lines of "--enable-tap-tests".  If you don't specify it,
> prove_check expands to nothing.  If you do specify it, we fail if we
> lack any of the expected support, both "prove" and whatever the agreed-on
> set of Perl modules is.
>
> 			


+1

If we go this way I'll add a tap icon to the buildfarm so you can see 
which animals are running the tests.

cheers

andrew