My comments inline,
Sun Microsystems / Mysql Inc, www.sun.com
Office: Austin TX 78728, USA
Are you MySQL certified? www.mysql.com/certification
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rafal Somla [mailto:rsomla@stripped]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:37 AM
> To: Hema Sridharan
> Cc: commits@stripped
> Subject: Re: bzr commit into mysql-6.0-backup branch
> (hema:2650) WL#4227
> 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.
Hema: This separate suite was created after consulting with Magnus, Lars,
Also long back I sent an email to everyone asking suggestion about the same.
There was a plan to move all the tests to backup suite, so Magnus said that
there is no need to run all the
backup tests with different character sets combinations. That's the reason
to create separate backup_charsets after taking advice from him.
> 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?
Hema: No, you are correct. Actually I splitted some of the test cases in to
separate tests to have good coverage.
Also I thought that there is no specific test in backup that tests all
datatypes and all partitions alone, so I created separate tests. This will
help in running all datatypes/partitions with different combinations of
character sets/collations/storage engines. This way we can have good test
> 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?
Hema: As far as testing of objects is concerned, WL#4222(Test of metadata
consistency) tests all the objects. Chuck is reviewing the tests for this WL
currently. Once I get approval to push from him, I will have to make slight
modifications to the test so that the same test can be run for different
combinations of csets and coll. I will let you know what modifications I am
going to make once I do it. There are some tests are common for different
There is no much difference between tests 2-4. I will modify the WL
Please let me know if you have any questions further.