Обсуждение: [PATCH] Allow TAP tests to be run individually

Per prior discussion, this small Makefile change allows anything that
uses $(prove_check) or $(prove_installcheck) to have the list of tests
overridden by passing a PROVE_TESTS as a list of space-separated test
file paths.

Particularly handy for src/test/recovery when you want to run
t/009_something_new.pl without running 001 through 008 each and every
time. The current workaround is deleting the tests you don't want,
which dirties up your git tree and is really annoying when checking
out and rebasing etc.

Please backpatch to at least 9.6 since it's trivial and we seem to be
doing that for TAP. 9.5 and 9.4 would be nice too :)

--
 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Please backpatch to at least 9.6 since it's trivial and we seem to be
> doing that for TAP. 9.5 and 9.4 would be nice too :)

Yes please!
-- 
Michael

On 11 November 2016 at 18:13, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Please backpatch to at least 9.6 since it's trivial and we seem to be
>> doing that for TAP. 9.5 and 9.4 would be nice too :)
>
> Yes please!

No immediate takers, so adding to CF.

I've taken the liberty of adding you as a reviewer based on your
response and the simplicity of the patch. if you get the chance to
test and verify please set ready for committer.


-- Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 11 November 2016 at 18:13, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> Please backpatch to at least 9.6 since it's trivial and we seem to be
>>> doing that for TAP. 9.5 and 9.4 would be nice too :)
>>
>> Yes please!
>
> No immediate takers, so adding to CF.
>
> I've taken the liberty of adding you as a reviewer based on your
> response and the simplicity of the patch. if you get the chance to
> test and verify please set ready for committer.

I don't mind. This patch uses the following pattern:
$(or $(PROVE_TESTS),t/*.pl)
While something more spread in Postgres source would be something like that:
$(if $(PROVE_TESTS),$(PROVE_TESTS),t/*.pl)
It seems to me that we'd prefer that for consistency, but I see no
reason to not keep your patch as well. I am marking that as ready for
committer.
--
Michael

On 14 November 2016 at 16:52, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 11 November 2016 at 18:13, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>> Please backpatch to at least 9.6 since it's trivial and we seem to be
>>>> doing that for TAP. 9.5 and 9.4 would be nice too :)
>>>
>>> Yes please!
>>
>> No immediate takers, so adding to CF.
>>
>> I've taken the liberty of adding you as a reviewer based on your
>> response and the simplicity of the patch. if you get the chance to
>> test and verify please set ready for committer.
>
> I don't mind. This patch uses the following pattern:
> $(or $(PROVE_TESTS),t/*.pl)
> While something more spread in Postgres source would be something like that:
> $(if $(PROVE_TESTS),$(PROVE_TESTS),t/*.pl)
> It seems to me that we'd prefer that for consistency, but I see no
> reason to not keep your patch as well. I am marking that as ready for
> committer.

Thanks.

-- Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On 11/14/16 3:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I don't mind. This patch uses the following pattern:
> $(or $(PROVE_TESTS),t/*.pl)
> While something more spread in Postgres source would be something like that:
> $(if $(PROVE_TESTS),$(PROVE_TESTS),t/*.pl)
> It seems to me that we'd prefer that for consistency, but I see no
> reason to not keep your patch as well. I am marking that as ready for
> committer.

($or ...) is a newer feature of GNU make, so we have avoided that so
far.  I have committed your v2 with $(if ...).

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 11/14/16 3:52 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I don't mind. This patch uses the following pattern:
>> $(or $(PROVE_TESTS),t/*.pl)
>> While something more spread in Postgres source would be something like that:
>> $(if $(PROVE_TESTS),$(PROVE_TESTS),t/*.pl)
>> It seems to me that we'd prefer that for consistency, but I see no
>> reason to not keep your patch as well. I am marking that as ready for
>> committer.
>
> ($or ...) is a newer feature of GNU make, so we have avoided that so
> far.  I have committed your v2 with $(if ...).

Thanks, I am just going to use it...
-- 
Michael