Hi Hema,
Before digging into the details, I have these general questions/remarks. Please
reply to them.
Hema Sridharan wrote:
> #At file:///data0/backupjul2/mysql-6.0-backup/
>
> 2650 Hema Sridharan 2008-07-08
> WL#4227(Test of identifiers for character sets). The test included are test of
> partitions and different datatypes.
> added:
> mysql-test/suite/backup_charsets/
> mysql-test/suite/backup_charsets/combinations
> mysql-test/suite/backup_charsets/include/
> mysql-test/suite/backup_charsets/include/charset.inc
> mysql-test/suite/backup_charsets/include/not_have_falcon.inc
> mysql-test/suite/backup_charsets/r/
> mysql-test/suite/backup_charsets/r/backup_datatypes.result
> mysql-test/suite/backup_charsets/r/backup_partitions.result
> mysql-test/suite/backup_charsets/t/
> mysql-test/suite/backup_charsets/t/backup_datatypes.test
> mysql-test/suite/backup_charsets/t/backup_partitions.test
>
I think having a separate backup_charsets test suite is too much granularity.
I'd define one common backup test suite where all the backup tests go, including
the character set related ones.
This patch defines 2 test cases: backup_datatypes and backup_partitions. But LLD
of the WL talks about 5 test cases. Moreover, neither of the test cases
described in the WL seems to correspond to one of the 2 test cases implemented
here. So, I would say that this patch does not implement the design described in
the WL... Am I wrong?
I have also a question concerning the design. To me tests 2-4 from LLD seem to
be basically the same. They all test correct backup and restore of different
objects with names using various character sets. Then why not to define just one
test case for this? Is there any important difference between them I'm missing?
Rafal
