2016-01-12 17:27 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja <marko@joh.to>:
On 03/01/16 22:49, Jim Nasby wrote:
In the unit test, I'd personally prefer just building a table with the test cases and the expected NULL/NOT NULL results, at least for all the calls that would fit that paradigm. That should significantly reduce the size of the test. Not a huge deal though...
I don't really see the point. "The size of the test" doesn't seem like a worthwhile optimization target, unless the test scripts are somehow really unnecessarily large.
Further, if you were developing code related to this, previously you could just copy-paste the defective test case in order to easily reproduce a problem. But now suddenly you need a ton of different setup.
I don't expect to really have a say in this, but I think the tests are now worse than they were before.
the form of regress tests is not pretty significant issue. Jim's design is little bit transparent, Marko's is maybe little bit practical. Both has sense from my opinion, and any hasn't significant advantage against other.
any possible agreement, how these tests should be designed?
simple patch, simple regress tests, so there are no reason for long waiting.