Merge ~ahasenack/ubuntu/+source/libfido2:focal-libfido2-enable-tests into ubuntu/+source/libfido2:ubuntu/devel
Status: | Merged |
---|---|
Approved by: | Andreas Hasenack |
Approved revision: | 1d151615c3164b276fbaa817b397bebe29cfe6d8 |
Merged at revision: | 1d151615c3164b276fbaa817b397bebe29cfe6d8 |
Proposed branch: | ~ahasenack/ubuntu/+source/libfido2:focal-libfido2-enable-tests |
Merge into: | ubuntu/+source/libfido2:ubuntu/devel |
Diff against target: |
59 lines (+31/-1) 3 files modified
debian/changelog (+7/-0) debian/control (+2/-1) debian/rules (+22/-0) |
Related bugs: |
Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
---|---|---|---|
Christian Ehrhardt (community) | Approve | ||
Canonical Server | Pending | ||
Canonical Server MOTU reviewers | Pending | ||
Review via email: mp+381126@code.launchpad.net |
Description of the change
Run regress tests at build time, in an override d/rules target.
The normal build won't run them, so I override dh_auto_test and do another build with Debug enabled, which enables those tests.
To be sure they actually ran (they are invisible when they succeed), I do a second run with an injected failure, and verify that the failure happened.
This is what it looks like when the injected failure did not happen: https:/
I wondered about patching the code to run the regress tests in the normal build, not just the debug one, but found this commit[1] which changed that behavior because of a bug, so I felt it's better to follow upstream on this one.
PPA: https:/
1. https:/
Odd tests for sure...
Can't we make "echo "SUCCESS: regression tests passed"" to only appear if the tests worked.
Isn't there an RC or anything in the output that we can check.
At lesat the re-run with an error that we introduce seems extra effort that is error-prone and IMHO likely to break on updates.
I'd even be fine to have this behavior:
echo "Starting tests"
# Tests that might be silent
echo "Tests completed - if there is no output since 'Starting tests' they are all good"
Maybe you just need to talk to me about the details, but only looking at the MP I'm not buying it that this is the right way :-)