Re: Policy Change Proposal: Running the upstream test suite

[Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org>]

On 2024-07-29 21:07, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On July 29, 2024 8:53:11 AM UTC, "Louis-Philippe Véronneau" <pollo@debian.org> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > As discussed during the DebConf24 Python BoF, I'm submitting this change to the policy to require the use of the upstream test suite, both during the build process and as an autopkgtest.
> >
> > You can find the MR here:
> >
> > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge_requests/24
> >
> > People present at the BoF seemed to think this was a good idea. If you don't please reply to this message and make yourself heard :)
>
> I understand the theory and why it's a good idea to run the test suite.  I don't think it ought to be a hard requirement.  I have several packages where there's a test suite, but I don't run it:
>
> 1.  The largest set is packages that need test only dependencies which are not packaged.  When I am packaging something new which has a test suite, then I generally package any needed test depends. If those test depends also need test depends packaged, I generally stop and don't enable tests for things that are only in the archives to support tests.  Noseofyeti is an example of this.

That sounds like a valid technical reason not to run the tests to me :)

> 2.  There's at least one case where Debian has customizations that cause the test suite to fail, but the failures don't seem to cause any real problems.  If anyone wants to make it so the weasyprint test suite works on Debian, please knock yourself out.

Again, as long as you document that, I don't think it would go against 
the proposed policy change.

> 3.  I also maintain multiple packages which require network access to run their test suite, so they can't run tests during build, only autopkgtests.

Same.


--
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Louis-Philippe Véronneau
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   pollo@debian.org / veronneau.org
  ⠈⠳⣄