Hello,
On 2021-06-21 08:16, Andreas Tille wrote:
>>> Repository data is changed during the tests, which I dislike, but ...
>>> well ... we need to get somewhere.
>> * And I dislike this as well, so I simply removed the build time test, and
>> running that as autopkgtest. IMO doing this is even better since this
>> tests that the binary is actually installed.
> Another way would be to do some
>
> override_dh_auto_test:
> cp -a testdata testdata_save
> dh_auto_test
> rm -rf testdata
> mv testdata_save testdata
>
> or something like this. While I agree that autopkgtest is more important
> than build time test both falvours make sense.
Build time tests are very important for apriori (pre-upload) detection
of breakages introduced by updates/modifications of reverse
dependencies. ratt loses much of its power without these tests.
OK, added.
But you might want to check out ruby-team/meta[1] script, which also checks for
autopkgtest breakeages. Admittedly, I've always liked this more.
Here's the results for this, if you'd like to have a look just as an example
> However salsa CI shows a fail on autopkgtest with:
>
> ""
> HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found
> 2021-06-20 20:44:08 ERROR 404: Not Found.
> ""
>
> I guess this is a temporary error, and nothing related with package
> test. I'll hit the retry after a few hours
Hmmmm, but this looks like an attempt to access some remote location.
Works now
> > Peer review and (if not too bad) upload would be appreciated.
>
> I was going to upload, but found out that there's testdata/*.fast5, all
> of which is binary data. This makes me feel not too good, and maybe this
> can trigger a rejection from ftp master.
> Since this file is not in use, I think this can simply be dropped.
>
> Also, the *.pkl files have several huge strings like "\x03\xab" etc
> To my understanding, the *.pkl files have been used to save model's
> training parameters, and the script loads model's training parameters
> from that file if you pass it in as an argument (-d flag)
> And looks like they are binary files as well -- with those sorts of binary
> strings, and that too makes me feel not too good about it, since ftp
> master can again _potentially_ reject this.
>
> On the other hand, removing these files from the package would mean we
> cannot run autopkgtests, and hence I'm unsure about this. Would you have
> an opinion about this?
> Also @Andreas, what do you think?
I'm not sure. The *.pkl files do not really look "binary" but rather
badly saved UTF-8 code. But I agree that there is a slight chance that
ftpmaster will stumble upon it. Thus clarifying how that files were
created (=can be changed) makes sense.
Looks like it has been trained with passing the --train argument to mCaller.py
Do you think asking upstream about it, and put the way to reproduce that file in d/README.Source can
help there?
Nilesh