Re: Python-pysam for unstable?
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:35:38PM -0700, Afif Elghraoui wrote:
> I was talking about relying on the user to run the tests and manage CI,
> but that seems to be not what you intended and that this particular test
> runner was just broken. If it is possible to achieve both-- allowing
> automated testing and providing the user the ability to manually test
> the package, then I don't have such strong feelings about it.
OK. I can confirm that exactly this is pretty much the idea. The good
practices for autopkgtest also say that you should not just repeat the
upstream unit tests. For me the way I did it was some kind of a
compromise since files are now residing on other places (believe it or
not I detected some problems in python-ruffus since the scripts were
relying on a specific location of the Python code) and the tests serve
as a potentially rich example set.
> > If I upload with changes in the number of binary packages a new
> > processing will be needed.
>
> Suggesting an upload was from my message before I fixed the test runner.
> I'm not sure if we should still upload to unstable knowing that there
> are 30-something tests that are failing currently.
So I just wait. If other packages will be removed from testing than
that will just happen. They will migrate back later if we keep on
working.
> Any help would be welcome; this package has been drawing quite a bit of
> time.
Could you publish a log of the failed tests?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: