Re: Bug#922447: lighttpd: autopkgtest regression
Thank you for correcting my analysis. It would have taken me quite a
while to figure that out without your explanation.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:01:00PM +0100, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> I have downloaded the lighttpd source here, and read all the tests. All
> of them to start lighttpd directly, and at least the first test requires
> being run as root; Tests that need to run as root need to say so in the
> control file; salsa-ci runs stuff as root already, and that's why it
> doesn't fail there.
Indeed, the idea was to not run them as root where avoidable to make it
easier to run tests on developer systems.
> In fact, just adding `Restrictions: needs-root` makes the test pass again.
> Just tested this here.
After your explanation, that makes very much sense and we will change
that. Again thank you for going in depth.
> By the way, since all the tests are starting lighttpd directly means
> that the service definitions and the init integration is not being
> tested being "the service starts" (because the package installation, and
> therefore autopkgtest, would fail if that fails). Also, note that when
> you start lighttpd directly in your script, there will be another
> instance -- the one started by the init system -- running in the
Oh, testing the system-wide lighttpd service is a good idea. We should
fix that indeed.
As for conflicts with other instances, that part has been avoided:
* The invocations with -tt only check the configuration and do not open
* The invocations without -tt deliberately use a different port to avoid
the situation you describe.
Therefore I'm inclined to only add needs-root to the failing defconfig
tests. I do expect the others to pass unprivileged. And now I'm
confident that ci.d.n will tell me when they don't.
Thank you for the awesome service. Even the very limited autopktests
that lighttpd has now have revealed quite a number of problems. The
"just works" experience is great.