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

Re: Python related autopkgtest anti-pattern

On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 at 09:27:35 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> The fact that these tests are failing right now makes them relatively easy to 
> find, but even if they weren't failing, I still think testing against installed 
> versions is wrong.  Tests should have an intentional scope, not act of 
> whatever happens to be present.

Yes, I don't disagree with that.

> I think this is true even for applications that will only ever actually be 
> used with the default python3.  As an example, in xml2rfc I use the pattern 
> I'm suggesting here so that when a new python3 version is added as supported, 
> it gets tested right away and I know if there's a problem long before it 
> becomes the default.

That does seem like a good thing to test, at least in the cases where
it's straightforward.

One down side of having a test-dependency on python3-all is that if
you (or your packaging toolchain) forgot to add the required python3
dependency for a python3 script, your autopkgtest won't catch that.
(But Lintian hopefully will.)


Reply to: