Hi,
I ran some statistics on the test suite. While not fully accurate,
they still show some helpful details.
As far as the test suite is concerned, the following 23 tags appear to
be completely untested. (I realize the archive provides great
validation too.) If you see one of them often, please a
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.50.4
Severity: normal
* What led up to the situation?
(The issue is independent of the 'hello' package, I just used it to make
reproduction easier.)
$ apt-get source hello
$ cd hello-2.10
$ cat > debian/templates
Template: hello/all-languages
Type: boolean
Def
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 914163 + pending
Bug #914163 [lintian] lintian: False positive:
source-only-upload-to-non-free-without-autobuild on source+binary upload
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
tags 914163 + pending
thanks
Fixed in Git, pending upload:
https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/commit/6b5d5672c37edf3cb5f27e8ed986925c97000faa
checks/control-file.pm | 2 +-
debian/changelog
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:06 AM Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> Felix Lechner wrote:
>
> > other plans which would allow, for example, to disable at release time
> > any Lintian check that does not provide at least one test for each tag
> > it emits.
>
> What is the use-case for disabling checks like this?
Felix Lechner wrote:
> other plans which would allow, for example, to disable at release time
> any Lintian check that does not provide at least one test for each tag
> it emits.
What is the use-case for disabling checks like this?
> Are you referring to Perl coverage?
Yes.
> […] t/scripts/im
[I am also on the list]
> That's neat. Does this tie-in at all with the t/scripts/
> implemented-tags.t "tag coverage" test?
My email was only about test selection, i.e. which tests in t/* are
being run (the "onlyrun" option to t/runtests). I am not sure that
intersects with t/scripts/implemented
[no need to CC me; I'm on debian-lint-maint@lists.debian.org]
Hi Felix,
> [tag:tagname] will be retained. There is, however, a new function to
> run all tests for a particular *check*.
That's neat. Does this tie-in at all with the t/scripts/
implemented-tags.t "tag coverage" test?
Speaking of w
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:45 PM Chris Lamb wrote:
> Would that mean we wouldn't have to do the somewhat-ugly
> "$checkname-$tagname"? :)
> An *extremely* common use case for me at least is to run all checks
> for a particular tag.
You can still run all *tests* for a particular tag by prefixing
Hi Felix,
> A. Allowing tests to be arranged in folders other than
> t/$suite/$testname. (For many tests, that could be
> t/$check/$testname.)
Would that mean we wouldn't have to do the somewhat-ugly
"$checkname-$tagname"? :)
If it helps, direct your energy here an *extremely* common usecase
for
10 matches
Mail list logo
