Hi All,
This is a new list for the autopkgtest superficial test.
If the test done in the autopkgtest does not provide significant test
coverage then it should be marked with "Restrictions: superficial".
Ref: https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/autopkgtest/-/blob/master/doc/README.package-tests.rst
Examples of tests which are not significant includes (its not a complete list):
1) Executing the binary to check version
Test-Command: foo -v
Test-Command: foo -V
Test-Command: foo --version
2) Executing the binary to check help (foo -h)
Test-Command: foo -h
Test-Command: foo --help
3) A Python or Perl library runs import foo or require Foo; but does
not attempt to use the library beyond that.
Test-Command: python3 -c "import foo"
Similar to the last MBF, the intended bug text is:
*************************************************************************
Subject: <package>: autopkgtest must be marked superficial
Severity: important
User: sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com
Usertags: superficialtest
It has been noticed that the autopkgtest in <package> is running a
trivial command that does not provide significant test coverage:
- <command being run, e.g. foo --help>
Executing that command is considered to be a trivial test, which does
not provide significant coverage for a package as a whole.
But these tests are a useful way to detect regressions in dependencies
and prevent them from breaking your package.
However, it is important that we are realistic about the level of
test coverage provided by these commands: most regressions cannot be
detected in this way. So it is not appropriate for packages with only
superficial tests to have the reduced migration time to migrate from
unstable to testing as that means less
opportunity for testing by users compared to the package with no tests.
To support this, the keyword "Restrictions: superficial" has been
defined [1]. Packages where all tests are marked with this keyword are not
considered for the reduced migration age from unstable to testing, and
will not be allowed to migrate automatically in later stages of the
freeze [2].
Its always better to have more extensive testing than having
superficial testing, which again is better than having no test.
Please consider i) Adding a non-trivial test, and/or ii) Mark the
trivial test with "Restrictions: superficial", similar to
[3] or [4].
The Release Team has listed this issue in the list of Release Critical
Issues for bullseye [5] and has mentioned that the test must be marked
superficial if it is not testing one of its own installed binary
packages in some way. As a result, the severity of this bug report might
be increased to serious in future.
[1] https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/autopkgtest/-/blob/master/doc/README.package-tests.rst#defined-restrictions
[2] https://release.debian.org/bullseye/freeze_policy.html
[3] https://salsa.debian.org/utopia-team/dbus/-/commit/a80908df7d119b181eec5eb0542634a30c2ad468
[4] https://salsa.debian.org/apparmor-team/apparmor/-/commit/580667513a097088ebe579884b38ac8d8666d3b3
[5] https://release.debian.org/bullseye/rc_policy.txt
*************************************************************************
Attached is the dd-list.
--
Regards
Sudip
Attachment:
dd-list
Description: Binary data