On 06/29/2013 02:14 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> AIUI: They do test feature use and errors that have cropped up in the
> past that we need to beware of. They don't test every bug we've ever
> had, nor do they exercise every piece of code.
If we don't have a test for it, then we can break it in the future and
not know we've broken it until .0 is released. Is that really a
direction we're happy going in?
>
> Maybe there is a good case for these last two in a different set of tests.
If we had a different set of tests, that would be a valid argument. But
we don't, so it's not. And nobody has offered to write a feature to
split our tests either.
I have to say, I'm really surprised at the level of resistance people on
this list are showing to the idea of increasing test coverage. I thought
that Postgres was all about reliability? For a project as mature as we
are, our test coverage is abysmal, and I think I'm starting to see why.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com