On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 08:08:31PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
In my memory I remember a site that displayed the code coverage of the
regression tests, but I can't find it now. Does anybody know?
Are you thinking of spikesource? According to thier numbers, we currently
cover about 40% of
On Sunday 11 February 2007 05:59, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 12:20:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I do
agree with adding a test when you think it is likely to be able to catch
a whole class of errors, or even a specific error if it seems especially
likely to
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 12:20:35PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I do
agree with adding a test when you think it is likely to be able to catch
a whole class of errors, or even a specific error if it seems especially
likely to recur, but right now I'm not seeing how we do that here.
Well, currently
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:36:56 +0100
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not concerned so much about the runtime as the development and
maintenance effort...
Shouldn't we at least add the one or two exemplary statements that
failed so we have some sort of coverage
D'Arcy J.M. Cain darcy@druid.net writes:
How about a rule that says no new ode without a test?
We've got way too many tests like that already, ie, a bunch of
mostly-redundant functional tests of isolated new features.
Most of the code I worry about there isn't any simple way to
test from the SQL
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:30:45 -0500
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
D'Arcy J.M. Cain darcy@druid.net writes:
How about a rule that says no new ode without a test?
We've got way too many tests like that already, ie, a bunch of
mostly-redundant functional tests of isolated new features.
D'Arcy J.M. Cain darcy@druid.net writes:
Well, that is covered in the system that I took that from. The full
description is;
1. Identify a bug or missing feature.
2. Write the test that proves the bug or missing feature.
3. Run the test to prove that it fails.
4. Code until the test
Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
... massive expansion of the tests doesn't seem justified
What about the idea that's been floated in the past about a --
extensive mode for regression testing that would (generally) only
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shouldn't we at least add the one or two exemplary statements that
failed so we have some sort of coverage of the problem?
We could, but I'm unexcited about it. The known failures are an
extremely narrow case: we're trying to evaluate expressions
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 02:16:05PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
... massive expansion of the tests doesn't seem justified
What about the idea that's been floated in the past about a --
extensive mode for
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 12:33 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Is a test going to get added to the regression tests to catch similar
regressions in the future?
While we can modify the regression tests to catch this specific problem
in the future, I wonder if there ought to be more testing of
Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While we can modify the regression tests to catch this specific problem
in the future, I wonder if there ought to be more testing of security
releases in the future. When a problem is reported, fixed, tested, and
the resulting security fix is publicly
As per numerous reports this morning, PG 8.2.2 and 8.1.7 both fail on
fairly simple scenarios involving typmod-bearing columns (varchar,
numeric, etc) with check constraints or functional indexes (and maybe
other cases too, but those are the ones reported so far). I have not
been able to
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 13:27:47 -0500,
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have applied a patch that resolves the problem AFAICT, but this time
around it would be nice to get some more eyeballs and testing on it.
Please try CVS HEAD or branch tips this afternoon, if you can. Core
is
On Feb 6, 12:27 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) wrote:
As per numerous reports this morning, PG 8.2.2 and 8.1.7 both fail on
fairly simple scenarios involving typmod-bearing columns (varchar,
numeric, etc) with check constraints or functional indexes (and maybe
other cases too, but those are
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is a test going to get added to the regression tests to catch similar
regressions in the future?
I've been thinking about that. It seems that the regression tests have
fairly poor coverage of use of typmod-bearing data types in general;
most of our
On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is a test going to get added to the regression tests to catch similar
regressions in the future?
I've been thinking about that. It seems that the regression tests
have
fairly poor coverage of use of
Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
... massive expansion of the tests doesn't seem justified
What about the idea that's been floated in the past about a --
extensive mode for regression testing that would (generally) only be
used by the build
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is a test going to get added to the regression tests to catch similar
regressions in the future?
I've been thinking about that. It seems that the regression tests have
fairly poor coverage of use of typmod-bearing data types in
19 matches
Mail list logo
