pg_waldump: add test for coverage

On 23.08.22 03:50, Dong Wook Lee wrote:

Hi Hackers,
I wrote a test for coverage.
Unfortunately, it seems to take quite a while to run the test.
I want to improve these execution times, but I don't know exactly what to do.
Therefore, I want to hear feedback from many people.

I don't find these tests to be particularly slow. How long do they take
for you to run?

A couple of tips:

- You should give each test a name. That's why each test function has a
(usually) last argument that takes a string.

- You could use command_like() to run a command and check that it exits
successfully and check its standard out. For example, instead of

# test pg_waldump with -F (main)
IPC::Run::run [ 'pg_waldump', "$wal_dump_path", '-F', 'main' ], '>',
\$stdout, '2>', \$stderr;
isnt($stdout, '', "");

it is better to write

command_like([ 'pg_waldump', "$wal_dump_path", '-F', 'main' ],
qr/TODO/, 'test -F (main)');

- It would be useful to test the actual output (that is, fill in the
TODO above). I don't know what the best way to do that is -- that is
part of designing these tests.

Also,

- Your patch introduces a spurious blank line at the end of the test file.

- For portability, options must be before non-option arguments. So
instead of

[ 'pg_waldump', "$wal_dump_path", '-F', 'main' ]

it should be

[ 'pg_waldump', '-F', 'main', "$wal_dump_path" ]

I think having some more test coverage for pg_waldump would be good, so
I encourage you to continue working on this.

Hi,

On 2022-08-23 10:50:08 +0900, Dong Wook Lee wrote:

I wrote a test for coverage.

Unfortunately the test doesn't seem to pass on windows, and hasn't ever done so:
https://cirrus-ci.com/github/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/commitfest/39/3834

Due to the merge of the meson patchset, you should also add 001_basic.pl to
the list of tests in meson.build

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On 06.09.22 07:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

I wrote a test for coverage.
Unfortunately, it seems to take quite a while to run the test.
I want to improve these execution times, but I don't know exactly what
to do.
Therefore, I want to hear feedback from many people.

I think having some more test coverage for pg_waldump would be good, so
I encourage you to continue working on this.

I made an updated patch that incorporates many of your ideas and code,
just made it a bit more compact, and added more tests for various
command-line options. This moves the test coverage of pg_waldump from
"bloodbath" to "mixed fruit salad", which I think is pretty good
progress. And now there is room for additional patches if someone wants
to figure out, e.g., how to get more complete coverage in gindesc.c or
whatever.

On 14.06.23 09:16, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

On 06.09.22 07:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

I wrote a test for coverage.
Unfortunately, it seems to take quite a while to run the test.
I want to improve these execution times, but I don't know exactly
what to do.
Therefore, I want to hear feedback from many people.

I think having some more test coverage for pg_waldump would be good,
so I encourage you to continue working on this.

I made an updated patch that incorporates many of your ideas and code,
just made it a bit more compact, and added more tests for various
command-line options.  This moves the test coverage of pg_waldump from
"bloodbath" to "mixed fruit salad", which I think is pretty good
progress.  And now there is room for additional patches if someone wants
to figure out, e.g., how to get more complete coverage in gindesc.c or
whatever.

Here is an updated patch set. I added a test case for the "first record
is after" message. Also, I think this message should really go to
stderr, since it's more of a notice or warning, so I changed it to use
pg_log_info.

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation: not tested

Hello,

I've reviewed your latest v3 patches on Ubuntu 23.04. Both patches apply correctly and all the tests run and pass as they should. Execution time was normal for me, I didn't notice any significant latency when compared to other tests. The only other feedback I can provide would be to add test coverage to some of the other options that aren't currently covered (ie. --bkp-details, --end, --follow, --path, etc.) for completeness. Other than that, this looks like a great patch.

Kind regards,

Tristen

On 29.06.23 21:16, Tristen Raab wrote:

I've reviewed your latest v3 patches on Ubuntu 23.04. Both patches apply correctly and all the tests run and pass as they should. Execution time was normal for me, I didn't notice any significant latency when compared to other tests. The only other feedback I can provide would be to add test coverage to some of the other options that aren't currently covered (ie. --bkp-details, --end, --follow, --path, etc.) for completeness. Other than that, this looks like a great patch.

Committed.

I added a test for the --quiet option. --end and --path are covered.

The only options not covered now are

-b, --bkp-details output detailed information about backup blocks
-f, --follow keep retrying after reaching end of WAL
-t, --timeline=TLI timeline from which to read WAL records
-x, --xid=XID only show records with transaction ID XID

--follow is a bit tricky to test because you need to leave pg_waldump
running in the background for a while, or something like that.
--timeline and --xid can be tested but would need some work on the
underlying test data (such as creating more than one timeline). I don't
know much about --bkp-details, so I don't have a good idea how to test
it. So I'll leave those as projects for the future.