Bug#786039: add debconf testing
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:49:45AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Package: autopkgtest
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Hi,
>
> It would be great if autopkgtest were to include a method to test
> debconf scripts. This could be done by creating a custom debconf
> frontend that takes answers to questions from autopkgtest rather than
> from the user. The system could automatically permutate values over
> various runs (e.g., install the package once while answering "yes" to a
> boolean, and once while answering "no" to a boolean)
>
> For templates which could have a potentially infinite number of answers,
> either the maintainer could enter the possible range in the autopkgtest
> configuration (or, better yet, in the template, though that would
> require changes to the debconf spec), or the system could use a limited
> number of random values. Also, for templates which have a limited but
> large number of answers (e.g., the locales package), it might be good to
> have a way to specify that the system doesn't need to try *all* possible
> permutations.
Would adding a Preseed: field to the test definition be a decent
solution to this? Something like:
----------------8<----------------8<----------------8<-----------------
Test: check-installed-package
Preseed: path/to/scenario1.preseed
Test: check-installed-package
Preseed: path/to/scenario2.preseed
----------------8<----------------8<----------------8<-----------------
Then that preseed could be loaded in the testbed's debconf database
before installing any packages, and the maintainer would have complete
control of what is being tested.
(the test programs listed in Test: might be the same or not, that's an
orthogonal concern)
--
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro at debian.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/autopkgtest-devel/attachments/20150520/42235e22/attachment.sig>
Reply to: