Re: In which good intentions are punished, take 2

On 02/25/2014 08:53 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> On the
>> other hand, we evidently have got precious little other buildfarm
>> coverage of the convert() family of functions, so maybe removing
>> this test altogether wouldn't be the best thing either.
> We do have precious little testing on encodings and conversions, yes.
> The problem is how to test these things without having the tests fail
> when any particular encoding is not installed in the test system.
>
> Maybe we can use the Perl test rig for this too: Peter said that if a
> test requires something not installed, the test is skipped without
> causing a failure. It seems to me that we could take advantage that so
> that each member tests whatever involves only the encodings it has
> installed; while each individual member would skip a large percentage of
> tests, the buildfarm as a whole would be testing a sizable portion, if
> not all of it.
>

It should be easy (at least on *nix) for the buildfarm client to check
what encodings are installed on the machine and run tests accordingly. I
haven't been following closely, but if someone provides me with a simple
spec I'll try to code it up. We're about due for a release anyway.

cheers

andrew