[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "Always failed" ? Doesn't seem to be true

Paul Gevers writes ("Re: "Always failed" ? Doesn't seem to be true"):
> On 20-06-18 01:00, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I happened to look at
> >   https://ci.debian.net/packages/d/dgit/testing/amd64/
> > and noticed that there is a version of git which breaks something in
> > dgit or dgit's test suite.
> > 
> > It says "This package is failing and has 5.0 passed." but the package
> > is not failing.
> Well, the last run failed, didn't it? This page (testing) of ci.d.n is
> not compatible with how it's used. I.e. this page just reports the
> status of the last test that gets processed during the generation of the
> page (which is in > 95% of cases the top one). I think that for testing,
> we should remove this text.

Yes.  Also the summary page is wrong for testing too, for the same

It would be better to report the baseline status.  Is that available
here ?

> > But actually my tests pass in testing.
> I am afraid there is a bug in britney somewhere in the case it never
> ever generated a migration-reference/0 trigger for a package (it does
> that only when it find no previous results at all). The idea is (but
> apparently it doesn't properly work in that case) is that the internal
> reference in britney is build up by previous results.
> I triggered a migration-reference/0 on britneys behalf. Git should get a
> 10 days additional age on top of the 5 days by default.

Thanks for fixing my case so promptly.

I am a bit confused.  I confess don't really understand all this
business with `a migration-reference/0 trigger'.  But maybe one should
be created if there is no such `migration-reference/0 trigger' rather
than if there are no tests ?

> A side note: for urgency high or higher, the results for autopkgtest are
> ignored.

Even if they show regressions ?  Interesting.  I guess that's a
reasonable guess at what is best...


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply to: