On 5 March 2014 10:23, Alexander Todorov <atodorov(a)redhat.com> wrote:
На 4.03.2014 20:36, Mat Booth написа:
On 25 February 2014 11:19, Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/25/2014 11:45 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>>
>>> 3) Another proposal (sorry don't remember who proposed it) was to have
>>> %check with a comment why the test suite is not executed (e.g. requires
>>> network) or why it is executed in %build.
>>>
>>
>> Commenting why tests are skipped is a very good thing, but I don't like
>> the idea of adding empty %check sections to my 250+ packages just for
>> the sake of documenting that tests are ran in %build "because that's
>> what we do in Java world".
>>
>>
>> Agreed, it seems like busy work to me that adds very little value to
> anyone
> familiar with Java packages.
>
You are forgetting everyone that is not so familiar with Java.
Also I didn't ask you (as a package owner) to do it explicitly, I've asked
you to accept a patch which should be much more easier.
Wouldn't it be easier to change the whatever
> tool is generating this report to accommodate for this? "If package
> invokes
> %mvn_build then don't expect there to be a %check section" seems like a
> reasonable heuristic to me.
>
>
>
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072417#c4 to avoid
repeating myself.
Even if the tool uses heuristics to exclude some groups of packages it
will not be obvious why there's no %check section. It could be because
tests are executed in %build, because they need root or network access and
are disabled, because the test framework used is not available (see DHCP)
or anything else.
If the tool excludes a package based on a heuristic, it can also tell you
*why* it was excluded (the heuristic was added for a reason!) A comment in
the SPEC is unnecessary duplication of information at that point.