On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 04:37:58PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > Interesting idea. For that the callback needs to know the injection > point name. At least we should pass that to the callback. It's trivial > thing to do.
This is what's done from the beginning, as well as of 0001 in the v5 series: +INJECTION_POINT(name); [...] + injection_callback(name); > That might work, but in order to run tests in that directory one has > to also install the extension. Do we have precedence for such kind of > dependency? Yes, please see EXTRA_INSTALL in some of the Makefiles. This can install stuff from paths different than the location where the tests are run. >> and that there are no string objections, so feel free >> to comment. > > Let's get some more opinions on the design. I will review the detailed > code then. Sure. Thanks. >> I don't want to propose 0003 in the tree, just an improved version of >> 0004 for the test coverage (still need to improve that). > > Are you working on v6 already? No, what would be the point at this stage? I dont have much more to add to 0001 and 0002 at the moment, which focus on the core of the problem. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
