On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 4:33 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> The individual test is actually named tmp_install. I thought it might be
> useful to add further things to the setup "stage", hence the more general
> name.
I did notice that, but only after sitting with my initial confusion for a while.
> I e.g. have a not-quite-done patch that creates a "template initdb", which
> pg_regress and tap tests automatically use (except if non-default options are
> required), which quite noticably reduces test times (*). But something needs to
> create the template initdb, and initdb doesn't run without an installation, so
> we need to run it after the temp_install.
>
> Of course we could wrap that into one "test", but it seemed nicer to see if
> you fail during installation, or during initdb. So for that I added a separate
> test, that is also part of the setup suite.
But what are the chances that the setup / tmp_install "test" will
actually fail? It's almost a test in name only.
> Of course we could still name the suite tmp_install (or to be consistent with
> the confusing make naming, have a temp-install target, which creates the
> tmp_install directory :)). I guess that'd still be less confusing?
Yes, that definitely seems like an improvement. I don't care about the
tiny inconsistency that this creates.
I wonder if this could be addressed by adding another custom test
setup, like --setup running, used whenever you want to just run one or
two tests against an ad-hoc temporary installation? Offhand it seems
as if add_test_setup() could support that requirement?
--
Peter Geoghegan