public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Jacob Champion <[email protected]>
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Jelte Fennema-Nio <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:02:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOYmi+ka511ACSAz-e-ZZW7Vm65ZpJCb4qZHM22dyZ5eWHVfsg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYZ-HhwGKqrMaPtnuwq8jWMf_XJVOnDB=8aD+Y73SeXEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOYmi+kThkM9Z87u=R_Wi7fCor2i+UZKAyq0UCyprzCwTQvqgA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAOYmi+niQdwFdX7srOiD8zdme_rxEp2m4JGdqzK=+dS6dpV2Og@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CA+Tgmobhsqh8c+ySXaPf5MdVwFYW6ceQ05N7pav6dzecxJGJoQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGECzQTtGoPGQMZactCAytbPvNcA59Zk7RA7SEmzObyAm7K=5w@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoZCQtUu4u7XJ1umD8k5pTuM3h2zLDyQ1uoVOP-==gJz_Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGECzQTzjVaMrKi5SCqL+H63pOx8r1DP0JpJ0v2SfaE0fMaNmg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoYvLLAJthL9ev-qc3gVLYX5WC3y3T5hsObaEnVOAx+e6g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOYmi+mrMQ9pXFJyUOnZm1Sk03fOod3Ja8Zp1cBMcejJezY4Cg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+TgmoYZ-HhwGKqrMaPtnuwq8jWMf_XJVOnDB=8aD+Y73SeXEA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 1:04 PM Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> One caveat here,
> perhaps, is that the focus of the work you've done up until now and
> the things that I and other community members may want as a condition
> of merging stuff may be somewhat distinct. You will have naturally
> been focused on your goals rather than other people's goals, or so I
> assume.
Right. That's a risk I knew I was taking when I wrote it, so it's not
going to offend me when I need to rewrite things.
> I would be a bit wary of splitting it up over
> too many different threads. It may well make sense to split it up, but
> it will probably be easier to review if the core work to enable this
> is one patch set on one thread where someone can read just that one
> thread and understand the situation, rather than many threads where
> you have to read them all.
I'll try to avoid too many threads. But right now there is indeed just
one thread (OAUTHBEARER) and it's way too much:
- the introduction of pytest
- a Construct-based manipulation of the wire protocol, including
Wireshark-style network traces on failure
- pytest fixtures which spin up libpq and the server in isolation from
each other, relying on the Construct implementation to complete the
seam
- OAuth, which was one of the motivating use cases (but not the only
one) for all of the previous items
I really don't want to derail this thread with those. There are other
people here with their own hopes and dreams (see: unconference notes),
and I want to give them a platform too.
> > That doesn't mean I want to
> > do this without a plan; it just means that the plan can involve saying
> > "this is not working and we can undo it" which makes the uncertainty
> > easier to take.
>
> As a community, we're really bad at this. [...]
I will carry the response to this to the next email.
Thanks,
--Jacob
view thread (77+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework
In-Reply-To: <CAOYmi+ka511ACSAz-e-ZZW7Vm65ZpJCb4qZHM22dyZ5eWHVfsg@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox