On 8/3/20 3:34 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>
> I'm quite lost about Expect portability discussion wrt windows, it is
> unclear to me whether it is expected to work there or not.
Sorry if I was unclear. Expect will not work on Windows. Nor will use of
IO::Pty or IO::Tty, which are what Expect
Re-reading this thread, I see no complaints about introducing a
dependency on Expect.
Indeed, Tom's complaint was on another thread, possibly when interactive
tests "src/bin/psql/t/010_tab_completion.pl" were added.
ISTM that one of the issue was that some farm animal would be broken.
On Sun, Aug 02, 2020 at 11:10:23AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> +1. Also note that the Windows animals don't and probably will never
> support Expect, since Windows doesn't have PTYs. Expect.pm is in fact a
> pure perl module that sits on top of IO::Pty, which in turn sits on top
> of IO::Tty.
On 8/1/20 5:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> On 1 Aug 2020, at 09:06, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>> AFAICR the feedback is that the Expect perl module is not welcome, which
>>> seems to suggest that it would have to be re-implemented somehow. This is
>>> not my dev
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 1 Aug 2020, at 09:06, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> AFAICR the feedback is that the Expect perl module is not welcome, which
>> seems to suggest that it would have to be re-implemented somehow. This is
>> not my dev philosophy, I won't do that, so I'm sorry to say that
> On 1 Aug 2020, at 09:06, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
This patch no longer applies: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_27_2262.log
CF entry has been updated to Waiting on Author.
>>>
>>> This patch hasn't been updated and still doesn't apply, do you intend to
>>> rebase
>>>
Hello,
This patch no longer applies: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_27_2262.log
CF entry has been updated to Waiting on Author.
This patch hasn't been updated and still doesn't apply, do you intend to rebase
it during this commitfest or should we move it to returned with feedback? It
can
> On 5 Jul 2020, at 13:38, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>
>> On 24 Mar 2020, at 15:47, David Steele wrote:
>
>> This patch no longer applies: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_27_2262.log
>>
>> CF entry has been updated to Waiting on Author.
>
> This patch hasn't been updated and still doesn't
> On 24 Mar 2020, at 15:47, David Steele wrote:
> This patch no longer applies: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_27_2262.log
>
> CF entry has been updated to Waiting on Author.
This patch hasn't been updated and still doesn't apply, do you intend to rebase
it during this commitfest or should we
Hi Fabien,
On 11/27/19 11:01 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:14:16AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Indeed, I did not notice.
This patch no longer applies: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_27_2262.log
CF entry has been updated to Waiting on Author.
Regards,
--
-David
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:14:16AM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Indeed, I did not notice.
Thanks, Fabien!
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Bonjour Michaël,
Please note that you have received comments on this patch a couple of
weeks ago. The patch was still marked as "needs review", which was
incorrect, and it does not apply. Perhaps you did not notice it, so I
am moving it to next CF, waiting on author for a rebase and for
Hi Fabien,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 04:48:06PM +0530, vignesh C wrote:
> Few comments:
> + [ 'START TRANSACTION', [ qr{ISOLATION LEVEL}, qr{(?!BEGIN)} ] ],
> + [ 'TABLE', [ qr{ONLY} ] ], # hmmm...
> + [ 'TRUNCATE', [ qr{CONTINUE IDENTITY} ] ],
> + [ 'UNLISTEN', [ ] ],
>
> We can remove # hmmm...
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 4:49 PM Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>
> >> Here is a v5.
>
> > Few more in icommand_checks subroutine:
> > Few unwanted code can be removed.
>
> Indeed, more debug and test code.
>
> Attached v6 fixes these, and I checked for remaining scrubs without
> finding any.
>
Few
Hello Alvaro,
I think the TestLib.pm changes should be done separately, not together
with the rest of the hacking in this patch.
Mostly, because I think they're going to cause trouble. Adding a
parameter in the middle of the list may cause trouble for third-party
users of TestLib.
That is
On 2019-Sep-13, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Hello Alvaro,
>
> > I think the TestLib.pm changes should be done separately, not together
> > with the rest of the hacking in this patch.
> >
> > Mostly, because I think they're going to cause trouble. Adding a
> > parameter in the middle of the list may
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:14:16PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Mostly, because I think they're going to cause trouble. Adding a
> parameter in the middle of the list may cause trouble for third-party
> users of TestLib. I propose that we make the routines a bit smarter to
> cope with the API
I think the TestLib.pm changes should be done separately, not together
with the rest of the hacking in this patch.
Mostly, because I think they're going to cause trouble. Adding a
parameter in the middle of the list may cause trouble for third-party
users of TestLib. I propose that we make the
Here is a v5.
Few more in icommand_checks subroutine:
Few unwanted code can be removed.
Indeed, more debug and test code.
Attached v6 fixes these, and I checked for remaining scrubs without
finding any.
--
Fabien.diff --git a/src/bin/pg_basebackup/t/010_pg_basebackup.pl
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:15 PM Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>
> >> Ok. Rebased version added, with some minor changes to improve readability
> >> (comments, variables).
> >
> > Few comments: [...]
> >
> > Commented line can be removed
> > Commented lines can be removed
> > ??? can be changed to some
Ok. Rebased version added, with some minor changes to improve readability
(comments, variables).
Few comments: [...]
Commented line can be removed
Commented lines can be removed
??? can be changed to some suitable heading
tab-complation to be changed to tab-completion
Commented lines can be
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:56 AM Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:52:01PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >> AFAICR this is because the coverage was not the same:-) Some backslash
> >> commands just skip silently to the end of the line, so that intermediate
> >> \commands on
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:52:01PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
AFAICR this is because the coverage was not the same:-) Some backslash
commands just skip silently to the end of the line, so that intermediate
\commands on the same line are not recognized/processed the same, so I moved
everything
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:52:01PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> AFAICR this is because the coverage was not the same:-) Some backslash
> commands just skip silently to the end of the line, so that intermediate
> \commands on the same line are not recognized/processed the same, so I moved
>
Bonjour Michaël,
+=item $node->icommand_checks(cmd, ...)
+
+=cut
+
+sub icommand_checks
Surely this can have a better description, like say
PostgresNode::command_checks_all.
Ok.
Is Expect compatible down to perl 5.8.0 which is the minimum required
for the TAP tests (see
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 08:06:43AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Attached is a rebase after TestLib.pm got a documentation in
> 6fcc40b1.
I am not completely sure what to think about this patch, but here are
some high-level comments.
+=item $node->icommand_checks(cmd, ...)
+
+=cut
+
+sub
Attached is a rebase after TestLib.pm got a documentation in 6fcc40b1.
The attached patch improves psql code coverage by adding a specific TAP test.
The 1709 tests take 4 seconds CPU (6.3 elapsed time) on my laptop.
The infrastructure is updated to require perl module "Expect", allowing to
Hello devs,
The attached patch improves psql code coverage by adding a specific TAP
test. The 1709 tests take 4 seconds CPU (6.3 elapsed time) on my laptop.
The infrastructure is updated to require perl module "Expect", allowing to
test interactive features such as tab completion and prompt
28 matches
Mail list logo
