Hi Florian, great minds think alike, eh ?

TLDR
I think both test frameworks can appear there, providing alternatives (xUnit vs TAP syntax) to developers. I'd rather not rename plpgsql to postgresql, because a kata in sql already exists, implemented in postgresql (but can be also done in MysQL or Oracle).

Full version
I saw you use pgUnit, that has few activity https://github.com/adrianandrei-ca/pgunit/. I chose pgTAP cause it looks more active https://github.com/theory/pgtap, but its approach is TAP, different from xUnit, whereas pgUnit is. Anyway, I didn't use it at work so my position is not well informed. Using Docker is also a great idea, glad to see you've done so :°)
So, why not create two subfolders (pgUnit and pgTAP) in plpgsql/test ?

👍
I will move my code in plpgsql/test/pgunit

Hi Florent,

I red your comment on the other PR, I'll keep discussing here to keep all comments together.
I agree with all your comments and can do according changes.

But I think we can even go further and share more structure.
You supplied in pgunit folder the production code and test code together, and used for production code a slightly different implementation: use temporary variables, instead of using the cursor.

I suggest to keep production code separate for test code, ending with:

• plpgsql/structure : create table
• plpgsql/src/cursor
• plpgsql/src/temporary_variable
• plpgsql/test/pgunit
• plpgsql/test/pgtap

And last, I saw you put a full test sample, complete with expected and actual (in plpgsql/pgunit/run_tests.sql). IMHO, the kata does not inted to supply the solution, people are expected to build their test suite by themselves.

Anyway, if you don't have time left, or found this over-engineered, or expect everything to be self-supporting, let me know, keep pour PR as-is, I'll update mine according to your structure.

I prefer to accept the 2 PR before, then create another PR to share the code.
Otherwise, it seems difficult because they will be interdependent.
More, the duplication of this 2 files isn't very important.

Hello, thankyou for the pull request. I like the approach of giving a dockerfile for easy setup of the database. I had a small comment about the starting unit test. Do you think you could address that? Also, can both you contributors agree which pull request I should accept, or perhaps I should accept both?

Hello,

I agree with your comment concerning the starting unit test.

Hi Emily, Anthony and me agreed on this timeline: master / PR136 / PR137.
You can accept PR136 now, and then wait for Anthony to change the unit test on PR317.

Anthony, you may change PR name to "PL/pg SQL: Add unit test framework (PGUnit), with Docker"

It's done :)

Thankyou!

Hi @acassaigne, look like you create your branch from emilybache, not from my PR.
All pgUnit code has been removed by this PR