Packages with missing %check

[Colin Walters]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Miloslav Trmač <mitr at volny.cz> wrote:
> 
> Are you saying that the boot path should have tests, and the 
> less-frequently used parts of the system should be verified by seeing 
> whether any human users notice breakage? 
> 

No.  First, it's more that in order to run any other tests, the system 
must boot.

Now of course there's non-test "reporting" stuff like static code 
analysis, code style checkers...those things make sense in a mock 
chroot to me. They're not significantly more demanding than a simple 
build.

> I don't think "if it boots, ship it" is an acceptable quality target.
> 
The neat thing is that I can easily define multiple, progressively 
enhanced quality targets, and I do in fact.

For each ref, I have "buildmaster" in the string.  All that happened 
with this branch is that we stuck the RPMs together.  We don't know if 
it boots.

But quickly after that, we do boot.  That tree gets tagged as 
"smoketested" if it succeeds, and you can track just that tree.  It 
introduces a few minutes of latency.

After smoketested, there's a vast array of potential tests to run.  I 
think it makes sense to have a "baseline" per tree.  For example, for 
server/docker-io, it might mean that docker can start and pull images 
and run some basic things.

(One could argue for a per-tree smoketested that is this type of thing, 
but I think it makes sense to have a distinct phase which is the basic 
fundamental requirements for anything at all, such as having a 
functional systemd)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140227/334088c3/attachment.html>