Merge lp://staging/~pitti/indicator-session/autopkgtest into lp://staging/indicator-session/14.10

Proposed by Martin Pitt
Status: Merged
Approved by: Charles Kerr
Approved revision: 459
Merged at revision: 457
Proposed branch: lp://staging/~pitti/indicator-session/autopkgtest
Merge into: lp://staging/indicator-session/14.10
Diff against target: 55 lines (+6/-28)
3 files modified
debian/control (+2/-3)
debian/tests/control (+4/-4)
debian/tests/start-service (+0/-21)
To merge this branch: bzr merge lp://staging/~pitti/indicator-session/autopkgtest
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Charles Kerr (community) Approve
PS Jenkins bot (community) continuous-integration Approve
Review via email: mp+235599@code.staging.launchpad.net

Commit message

Fix autopkg tests

Description of the change

I noticed that https://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/utopic-adt-indicator-session/?
recently started to exist and fail. This is because current dpkg-source
automatically adds a "Testsuite: autopkgtest" header if there is a
debian/tests/control, and as that's broken the test fails.

We could of course just remove debian/tests/control (there's nothing valuable
in it), but I thought I'd give it a go. I didn't really find a true "system
level" test, as there is no such thing as "make integrationcheck" (perhaps it
existed long ago). I also tried with indicator-loader and

  dbus-send --print-reply --session --dest=com.canonical.indicator.session /com/canonical/indicator/session org.gtk.Actions.List

but that doesn't seem to work with indicator-loader, just under Unity.

So for now this updated test just calls the built test-service. It doesn't
actually test the installed package, but at least i-s' dependencies.

If you have a better idea how to test the actual package I'm all ears, of
course!

Thanks for considering!

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
PS Jenkins bot (ps-jenkins) wrote :
review: Approve (continuous-integration)
Revision history for this message
Ted Gould (ted) wrote :

I'd like to have charles comment on this some, but he's out today. I'm a bit surprised by the depends on the tests, it seems like we shouldn't need accountsservice or policykit for the test. Otherwise that seems like a good way to test the service to me.

Revision history for this message
Charles Kerr (charlesk) wrote :

The accountsservice dependency looks like a leftover from ~2011 when it was used to provide the user list.

Likewise, the polkit-1 dependency looks like a leftover from ~2009 when it was used to ask whether or not given actions could be performed. (However, see discussion in bug #474392).

Neither of these dependencies is new in this MP -- pitti's test is just a victim of pre-existing cruft and shouldn't block on it IMO.

I've opened a separate cleanup "remove unneeded dependencies" ticket @ bug #1378023

review: Approve
Revision history for this message
Martin Pitt (pitti) wrote :

Confirmed, I removed these two test dependencies and the test still succeeds. But as this MP is already being landed, I don't want to update this any more. Please let me know if you need to abort the landing for any reason, then I can just push the test dep update. Thanks!

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
The diff is not available at this time. You can reload the page or download it.

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches