Re: package testing, autopkgtest, and all that
On 31/01/11 at 00:29 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> The best incentive for adoption in this case is having periodic runs of
> package tests, with reporting. At first glance, I'm tempted to propose
> to use grid archive rebuilds to run tests. Lucas: how much work would it
> be to hack your rebuild scripts and infrastructure to run tests (if
> available)?
Hi,
If there's a packaged tool to run the test suite on a given package,
then it's quite easy to integrate it into my infrastructure. But I
clearly do not have the time to get autopkgtest's code back in shape
first.
> Lucas' approach to log digging has usually been
> collaborative: once a run is available, we ask on -qa to review
> logs. This is of course not as good as automatic reporting (e.g. a-la
> lintian.d.o), but is a start.
Well, it has rarely worked like that. Most of the time, I just do the
log analysis + bug filing alone. That means that the tool to run the test
suite must be built with filing bugs in mind: it should provide all the
needed info in the logfile, so that developers can easily reproduce the
failure without asking the bug reporter.
- Lucas
Reply to: