On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>> > - It would be nice to have command_ok and command_fails in PostgresNode
>> > too; that would remove the need for setting $ENV{PGPORT} but it's
>> > possible to run commands outside a node too, so we'd need duplicates,
>> > which would be worse.
>>
>> I am fine to let it the way your patch does it. There are already many changes.
>
> Idea: we can have a bare command_ok exported by TestLib just as
> currently, and instance method PostgresNode->command_ok that first sets
> local $ENV{PGPORT} and then calls the other one.
Hm. That would be cleaner and make the code more consistent. Now as
TestLib exports command_ok, command_like and command_fails, we would
get redefinition errors when compiling the code if those routines are
not named differently in PostgresNode. If you want to have the names
consistent, then I guess that the only way would be to remove those
routines from the export list of TestLib and call them directly as for
example TestLib::command_ok(). See for example the patch attached that
applies on top on your patch 2 that adds a set of routines in
PostgresNode with a slightly different name.
>> > Finally, I ran perltidy on all the files, which strangely changed stuff
>> > that I didn't expect it to change. I wonder if this is related to the
>> > perltidy version. Do you see further changes if you run perltidy on the
>> > patched tree?
>>
>> SimpleTee.pm shows some diffs, though it doesn't seem that this patch
>> should care about that. The rest is showing no diffs. And I have used
>> perltidy v20140711.
>
> Yes, the patch doesn't modify SimpleTee -- I just used "find" to indent
> perl files. What I don't understand is why doesn't my perltidy run
> match what was in master currently. It should be a no-op ...
Well I don't get it either :)
I did a run on top of your two patches and saw no differences.
--
Michael