[freetds] unittest/setnull.c passes
James K. Lowden
jklowden at freetds.org
Tue Dec 11 10:25:51 EST 2007
ZIGLIO, Frediano, VF-IT wrote:
> > unittest/null.c and unittest/null2.c fail on Sybase servers because
> > there's no NTEXT or NVARCHAR(MAX).
> No, these kind of errors are ignored. However the test isn't able to
> distinguish if server return differently empty strings and NULLs...
> Sybase cannot store empty string so it returns empty strings as ' '.
There's so much noise in the output that I couldn't see what was expected
and what failed.
I mostly like your new tests. They're modular, generally easy to extend
(even if they're sometimes hard to pass!). And it's *great* to have
someone other than the guy writing the feature write the test. But would
it be OK to say the output is sometimes not very helpful?
I like output to be pretty quiet until something goes wrong. Something
Trying A ... ok
Trying B ... ok
Trying C ...
error: file:line: message expected C, got X.
When I get a chance (or if you do), I'd like to change the null tests not
to use the "OK anticipated error receive" feature. I added that feature
to test provoking errors: If I do X, does the library emit msgno Y? It's
not for ignoring messages because a server doesn't support a datatype. We
have DBTDS() for that.
BTW, I looked for something like dbsetnull() in ODBC. Didn't find
anything. Does it exist?
More information about the FreeTDS