From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.pdinc.us (mail.pdinc.us [67.90.184.27]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7F90393F867 for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 16:32:44 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org C7F90393F867 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pdinc.us Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jpyeron@pdinc.us Received: from lovegrove (nsa1.pdinc.us [67.90.184.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail1.pdinc.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 14JGWiN7028358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 12:32:44 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail1.pdinc.us 14JGWiN7028358 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pdinc.us; s=default; t=1621441964; bh=IWjVtm5AJB9P6qqDXNoUYfwo1Tpi1KvXZr2rDv2sfCc=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:From; b=ZScItv3Fp+z3FmI+Krv8EL+VWCRvd35r6JXoUCWqjSI89E708MP36zHNBMCsmSmq3 CkdLMKiOjpz5t6cHbSHmgZnmKCYrfPmlvlxGA2zfI6CMR6BETt15D9RPnFSawSkTI0 SpwUMNa5Q7MLFWQEcXv46Swzl3kNY1qWVboPmbM8rlSAl5BhweZ2OU2HREo2Cbsmjq revitHWB34vprbHbs00S5Zz2rTWgxctk1Z3KkG4i6sl+5rPbyf31etCK5C710r9gfg ZEgPHGZM1ADIVg8E8ue9Yv6rSqBuqzCerC6NB8rsNFurL/XkJpZbQ61l2Yr5dwuk/L VBpM16yzcbIFA== From: "Jason Pyeron" To: References: <01ad01d74517$f9f4e6e0$eddeb4a0$@pdinc.us> <87h7jbuqir.fsf@Otto.invalid> <009c01d74b6c$1ce8f7e0$56bae7a0$@pdinc.us> <8735ukejz2.fsf@Otto.invalid> <03dc01d74c1a$80c3df60$824b9e20$@pdinc.us> <87k0nvdcho.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <051901d74c28$58efeac0$0acfc040$@pdinc.us> <87y2cbcnhi.fsf@Otto.invalid> <50c37d50-1965-50cb-feb9-f386ab0b1374@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <50c37d50-1965-50cb-feb9-f386ab0b1374@gmail.com> Subject: RE: cygport test has zero exit status on failures Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 12:32:54 -0400 Message-ID: <6d3701d74ccc$9ec1cf60$dc456e20$@pdinc.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Content-Language: en-us Thread-Index: AQJBbTc15Bo1skbt1oV0TZ9pIm0uHQIt0WKZAlT4aq8BajoWSQJNsTW6AehVtZABTv0RUQFj66rgAOcPviKpqNXOsA== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, KAM_INFOUSMEBIZ, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Cygwin package maintainer discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 16:32:46 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Marco Atzeri > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 3:06 AM >=20 > On 19.05.2021 07:16, ASSI wrote: > > Jason Pyeron writes: >=20 > > > >> In any case the all or all-test does not execute the test step, so = the > >> customization of the src_test does not impact the default = behaviors. > > > > That's beside the point. We were only talking about the test = behaviours > > or at least I was, anyway. Now again, if you do that in the cygport > > file you mix that expectation of getting a return value (that really > > comes from the way you run cygport in the CI and determine the test > > status) with the package definition. If you force that to satisfy = your > > CI requirements, you also break the flow for folks who (as an = example) > > rather do > > > > cygport $p finish prep compile inst test pkg So for the pdfgrep that I am going to maintain, is it acceptable that I = want the package to not happen until I address the test failure? Like = so? ... BUILD_REQUIRES=3D"asciidoc gcc-g++ libpoppler-cpp-devel libgcrypt-devel = libpcre-devel dejagnu texlive-collection-latex docbook-xml45" src_test() { cd ${B} make check } > > > > because a test fail would now error out before getting to the = packaging > > step. Which is why I was musing that your preference in how to = treat a > > test fail should really be injected from the run-time environment = rather > > than the package definition. Once that mechanism is in place I can = also > > start writing my own src_test functions that switch their behaviour > > depending on that setting so that these package definitions would = work > > in either environment. >=20 > in general a generic test failure is not a valid reason to NOT = package. > Most of my packages have peculiar test failures that can be just = ignored >=20 > In several, I just use "cygmake -i check" in src_test > to avoid premature stop of the tests. >=20 > Others requires to be installed before the testsuite is > properly executed. Since it is not required to be installed, I would like to lean towards = stopping to fix first. v/r, Jason