public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Cc: qa <qa@gentoo.org>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Providing consistent means to enable tests requiring Internet access
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 16:14:13 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1493302453.1189.1.camel@gentoo.org> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1934 bytes --]

Hi, everyone.

Per long-standing unwritten (or rather, written but not really
officially approved) policy unmasked ebuilds are not allowed to fiddle
with Internet. While this normally makes a lot of sense (except for
special cases like live ebuilds), this also means that for some poorly
written packages we end up either disabling a fair number of tests, or
even restricting tests completely.

The Internet-based tests are of course mostly unreliable in the long
run, and should normally be replaced by some kind of mocking, local
servers etc., we simply do not have the manpower to fix all
the packages. All we can do is disable them.

Sadly, for some packages this means that we're left with no tests at
all. As developers, we can play around to run the tests manually, or
comment out needed ebuild bits for extra local testing. However, I think
it would make our work easier if we had a more uniform solutions for
detecting whenever the developer needs to disable networked tests,
and how to enable them.

The obvious solution would be to use a global USE flag with explanatory
description for that. For example:

internet-test - Enable running tests that access the Internet. Those
tests can be unreliable, result in data transfer fees and cause privacy
concerns (potentially exposing which packages are being installed). Use
at your own discretion.


The advantages of that would be:

a. tests requiring Internet are exposed in the standard ebuild metadata,
making it easy to grab it using standard tools,

b. those tests can easily be enabled, and that fact is recorded
in the installed package metadata,

c. the flag can easily be used in RESTRICT="" constraint to easily
disable all the tests.

The disadvantage is that we're introducing yet another special flag that
does not affect installed files.


What do you think? Any other ideas?


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

             reply	other threads:[~2017-04-27 14:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-27 14:14 Michał Górny [this message]
2017-04-27 21:42 ` [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Providing consistent means to enable tests requiring Internet access Alexis Ballier
2017-04-27 21:57   ` Mike Gilbert
2017-04-28  9:22     ` Alexis Ballier
2017-04-28  5:07   ` Michał Górny
2017-04-28  9:19     ` Alexis Ballier
2017-04-28 13:25 ` Kent Fredric
2017-04-28 13:37   ` Michał Górny
2017-04-28 14:00     ` Kent Fredric

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1493302453.1189.1.camel@gentoo.org \
    --to=mgorny@gentoo.org \
    --cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
    --cc=qa@gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox