Re: pgsql: Clean up after TAP tests in oid2name and vacuumlo.
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Clean up after TAP tests in oid2name and vacuumlo. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28056.1536088615@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Clean up after TAP tests in oid2name and vacuumlo. (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgsql: Clean up after TAP tests in oid2name and vacuumlo.
|
Список | pgsql-committers |
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes: > Okay, I don't want to create a dependency between REGRESS and > HAVE_TAP_TESTS either, but modules specifying both should be able to > trigger both regressions and tap tests. Agreed ... > So I would be inclined to > create two new rules, say check-regress and installcheck-regress, which > are invoked if check is called, and trigger pg_regress stuff. Then add > on top of it the existing prove-check and prove-installcheck. What do > you think? check and installcheck become this way the centralized place > for all types of test suites. Why would we invent a different target name? I was thinking something roughly like check: submake $(REGRESS_PREP) ifdef REGRESS $(pg_regress_check) $(REGRESS_OPTS) $(REGRESS) endif ifdef TAP_TESTS $(prove_check) endif although getting it to print a useful response when neither symbol is set would require complicating things a bit. Still, as long as there's just one copy of this rule, messiness isn't a big problem. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: