MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOYmi+kThkM9Z87u=R_Wi7fCor2i+UZKAyq0UCyprzCwTQvqgA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240610200411.byj6sv2vpgol6wcf@awork3.anarazel.de> <CAOYmi+niQdwFdX7srOiD8zdme_rxEp2m4JGdqzK=+dS6dpV2Og@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240612155040.u6cvatdb5tiwcxci@awork3.anarazel.de> <FAC2FCFE-8C70-4996-9598-34DD7596BB41@yesql.se>
 <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>
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYZ-HhwGKqrMaPtnuwq8jWMf_XJVOnDB=8aD+Y73SeXEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:02:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOYmi+ka511ACSAz-e-ZZW7Vm65ZpJCb4qZHM22dyZ5eWHVfsg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, 
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOYmi%2Bka511ACSAz-e-ZZW7Vm65ZpJCb4qZHM22dyZ5eWHVfsg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 1:04=E2=80=AFPM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>=
 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