On 15-03-2024 3:49 p.m., Dave Jones wrote:
> autopkgtest is "clever" about when it resets the testbed betweens tests,
> and this is a Bad Thing (tm) when it breaks assumptions about isolation.
> If the tests are truly isolated, this *should* fail ... but it doesn't.
> Reverse the order of the tests, and of course it does fail. Or add
> another package to the Depends of the first test (so it's a superset of
> the second test) and it fails.
Ack.
> Having spent quite some time failing to debug something, because I'd
> made the faulty assumption that tests were actually isolated, this level
> of "clever" is annoying and should either be removed or at least
> documented, preferably in the man-page so it jumps out at me next time
> I've forgotten this!
Currently I'm in favor of documenting, also because I know that there
are packages out there that rely on this. It does means that yes, the
order of the stanza matter.
Hi,
On 15-03-2024 3:49 p.m., Dave Jones wrote:
> autopkgtest is "clever" about when it resets the testbed betweens tests,
> and this is a Bad Thing (tm) when it breaks assumptions about isolation.
Ironically https:/ /bugs.debian. org/1063533 has a request in the opposite
direction...
> If the tests are truly isolated, this *should* fail ... but it doesn't.
> Reverse the order of the tests, and of course it does fail. Or add
> another package to the Depends of the first test (so it's a superset of
> the second test) and it fails.
Ack.
> Having spent quite some time failing to debug something, because I'd
> made the faulty assumption that tests were actually isolated, this level
> of "clever" is annoying and should either be removed or at least
> documented, preferably in the man-page so it jumps out at me next time
> I've forgotten this!
Currently I'm in favor of documenting, also because I know that there
are packages out there that rely on this. It does means that yes, the
order of the stanza matter.
Paul