Comment by CharlesW

Comment by CharlesW 3 days ago

> IMHO breaking free of SQLite's proprietary test suite is a bigger driver than C vs Rust.

I don't understand this claim, given the breadth and depth of SQLite's public domain TCL Tests. Can someone explain to me how this isn't pure FUD?

"There are 51445 distinct test cases, but many of the test cases are parameterized and run multiple times (with different parameters) so that on a full test run millions of separate tests are performed." - https://sqlite.org/testing.html

lmm 3 days ago

The test suite that the actual SQLite developers use to develop SQLite is not open-source. 51445 open-source test cases is a big number but doesn't really mean much, particularly given that evidently the SQLite developers themselves don't consider it enough to provide adequate coverage.

Reply View 0 replies

adamzwasserman 2 days ago

SQLite's test suite is infamously gigantic. It has two parts: the public TCL tests you're referencing, and a much larger proprietary test suite that's 100x bigger and covers all the edge cases that actually matter in production. The public tests are tiny compared to what SQLite actually runs internally.

Reply View 3 replies

wredcoll 2 days ago

...why does sqlite have proprietary tests??

Reply View | 2 replies
- structural 2 days ago
  
  It allows the code to be fully public domain, so you can use it anywhere, while very strongly discouraging random people from forking it, patching it, etc. Even still, the tests that are most applicable to ensuring that SQLite has been built correctly on a new compiler/architecture/environment are made open source (this is great!) while those that ensure that SQLite has been implemented correctly are proprietary (you only need these if you wanted to extend SQLite's functionality to do something different).
  This allows for a business model for the authors to provide contracted support for the product, and keeping SQLite as a product/brand without having to compete with an army of consultants wanting to compete and make money off of their product, startups wanting to fork it, rename it, and sell it to you, etc.
  It's pretty smart and has, for a quarter century, resulted in a high quality piece of software that is sustainable to produce and maintain.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- ragall 2 days ago
  
  So that enhancements only be practical by hiring the original team.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

einsteinx2 3 days ago

The irony is if they only had the public domain tests, no one would complain even though it would mean the exact same number of open source tests.

Reply View 1 reply

dullcrisp 2 days ago

That’s like if I gave you half the dictionary and then said it’s ironic that if there really weren’t any letters after “M” you wouldn’t be complaining.

Reply View | 0 replies

Ar-Curunir 2 days ago

There are also non-public tests.

Reply View 0 replies

digitalPhonix 3 days ago

The next bullet point:

> 2. The TH3 test harness is a set of proprietary tests…

Reply View 2 replies

CharlesW 3 days ago

Of course, but how does that make the allegation not FUD?

Reply View | 1 reply
- digitalPhonix 3 days ago
  
  I’m confused, the statement is that SQLite has a proprietary test suite? It does. Where’s the FUD?
  Turso tried to add features to SQLite in libsqlite but there were bugs/divergent behaviour that they couldn’t reconcile without the full test suite.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies