Hi, On 2026-01-06 20:07:22 +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote: > On Mon Jan 5, 2026 at 9:19 PM CET, Jacob Champion wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 8:10 AM Andres Freund <[email protected]> wrote: > > Before it gets too far away from me: note that I have not yet been > > able to get up to speed with the combined refactoring+feature patch > > that Jelte added in v3, and it's now up to v7, > > Attached is v8. It simplifies the Cirrus CI yaml, because the > dependencies are now baked into the images. I also removed the optional > dependency on uv. Meson/autoconf now simply search for pytest binary in > the .venv directory too. Devs can then choose if they want to populate > .venv with pip or uv. Finally, if the pytest binary cannot be found, > there's a fallback attempt to use `python -m pytest`.
I'm somewhat sceptical that the .venv support should be introduced together with the rest of this. > > > > -SUBDIRS = perl postmaster regress isolation modules authentication > > > > recovery subscription > > > > +SUBDIRS = \ > > > > + authentication \ > > > > + isolation \ > > > > + modules \ > > > > + perl \ > > > > + postmaster \ > > > > + pytest \ > > > > + recovery \ > > > > + regress \ > > > > + subscription > > > > > > I'm onboard with that, but we should do it separately and probably check > > > for > > > other cases where we should do it at the same time. > > > > I'm not sure what context this is referring to? What are you on board with? > > If I understood Andres correctly this was about splitting the items > across multiple lines. Yep. > I moved this to a separate thread, and it was > cammitted by Michael in 9adf32da6b. So this has been resolved afaik. Yay. > > > I think it'd be a seriously bad idea to start with no central > > > infrastructure, > > > we'd be force to duplicate that all over. > > > > Right, I just want central infra to be pulled out of the new tests > > that need them rather than the other way around. > I'm not sure how you expect that to work in practice. I believe (and I > think Andres too) that there's some infra that we already know we'll > need for many tests, e.g. starting/stopping nodes, running queries, > handling errors. Yes, I do indeed agree with that. > I don't think it makes sense to have those be pulled > out of new tests. You need some basics, otherwise no-one will want to > write tests. And even if they do, everyone ends up with different styles > of doing basic things. I'd rather coordinate on a bit of style upront so > that tests behave similarly for common usages. Indeed. I'm fairly fundamentally opposed to merging any of this without first having developed the basic infrastructure. Greetings, Andres Freund
