Feature #8164

Finish automating the APT test suite

Added by intrigeri 2014-10-20 12:31:39 . Updated 2016-04-26 09:13:38 .

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Test suite
Target version:
Tails_2.3
Start date:
2014-10-20
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
test/8164-remaining-apt-tests
Type of work:
Code
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
Deliverable for:

Description

Subtasks

Related issues

Blocked by Tails - Feature #8654: Have topic branches built using the packages from their base branch's APT repo Resolved 2015-01-09 2015-07-15

History

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2014-10-20 12:33:04

  • Subject changed from Automate the rest of our APT test suite to Finish automating the APT test suite

#2 Updated by intrigeri 2015-01-06 13:00:03

  • blocks #8538 added

#3 Updated by anonym 2015-01-09 14:46:51

  • Target version changed from Sustainability_M1 to Tails_1.8

#4 Updated by anonym 2015-01-10 18:17:01

  • Assignee set to anonym

#5 Updated by anonym 2015-01-10 18:17:43

  • blocked by Feature #8654: Have topic branches built using the packages from their base branch's APT repo added

#6 Updated by intrigeri 2015-01-11 10:18:35

#7 Updated by anonym 2015-12-16 14:06:04

  • Target version changed from Tails_1.8 to Tails_2.0

#8 Updated by anonym 2016-01-27 14:36:48

  • Target version changed from Tails_2.0 to Tails_2.2

#9 Updated by anonym 2016-03-15 11:22:59

  • Target version changed from Tails_2.2 to Tails_2.3

#10 Updated by anonym 2016-04-13 05:22:15

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
  • Assignee changed from anonym to intrigeri
  • % Done changed from 0 to 50
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA
  • Feature Branch set to test/8164-remaining-apt-tests

When testing, I recommend simply modifying debian/changelog to simulate the various scenarios we may encounter:

  • Right after a release (with the release tag checked out, or a few commits after that, before we bump the changelog), so here you should test both when the version matches and when it doesn’t.
  • Any other time, when we just skip this test.

By the way, I couldn’t come up with anything that made sense except this last one; as a developer, I want to be able to run the past stable release as --iso when developing new tests, so then there’s not much interesting to test. Thoughts?

#11 Updated by intrigeri 2016-04-15 09:07:59

  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to anonym
  • % Done changed from 50 to 80

Code review and basic testing pass, except: in components = split[3, split.size], do you mean split.size - 1 instead of split.size? Feel free to merge yourself into stable with this change, or a good explanation of why I’m confused :)

#12 Updated by intrigeri 2016-04-15 09:10:22

Also, please remove the corresponding manual tests before merging :)

#13 Updated by anonym 2016-04-22 03:42:20

  • Status changed from In Progress to Fix committed
  • Assignee deleted (anonym)
  • % Done changed from 80 to 100
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

intrigeri wrote:
> Code review and basic testing pass, except: in components = split[3, split.size], do you mean split.size - 1 instead of split.size?

Ah, you are correct. I think I mixed up how slicing works in python vs ruby:

# ruby
a = [0,1,2,3]
a[1, a.size]     #=> [1,2,3]
a[1, a.size-1]   #=> [1,2,3]

# python
a = [0,1,2,3]
a[1:len(a)]     #=> [1,2,3]
a[1:len(a)-1]   #=> [1,2]

So, indeed, what you suggest is more precisely correct, see commit:5070300.

> Feel free to merge yourself into stable with this change […]

Merged!

#14 Updated by anonym 2016-04-26 09:13:38

  • Status changed from Fix committed to Resolved