On 7/24/24 10:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> writes:
>> 1) As I said earlier I think we should remove the old code.
>
> I agree that carrying two versions of the test doesn't seem great.
> However, a large part of the purpose of test_sepgsql is to help
> people debug their sepgsql setup, which is why it goes to great
> lengths to print helpful error messages. I'm worried that making
> it into a TAP test will degrade the usefulness of that, simply
> because the TAP infrastructure is pretty damn unfriendly when it
> comes to figuring out why a test failed. You have to know where
> to even look for the test logfile, and then you have to ignore
> a bunch of useless-to-you chatter. I'm not sure if there is much
> we can do to improve that. (Although if we could, it would
> yield benefits across the whole tree.)
For me personally the output from when running it with meson was good
enough while the output when running with autotools was usable but
annoying to work with. Meson's integration with TAP is pretty good. But
with that said I am a power user and developer used to both meson and
autotools. Unclear what skill we should expect from the target audience
of test_sepgsql.
Andreas