Re: doubt with autopkgtest for javascript packages
Le lundi 09 novembre 2020 à 21:08 +, Sudip Mukherjee a écrit : > I have attached the list. > Do you want me to add them in my MBF list and raise bug reports for > them? If I remember well, I'm the main culprit behind those, and I'll refresh them -- probably at the end of the week: node-ast-types node-es5-shim node-esprima-fb node-mocha-lcov-reporter node-posix-getopt node-regenerate node-stringmap node-unicode-canonical-property-names-ecmascript node-unicode-property-aliases-ecmascript node-unicode-property-value-aliases Cheers, JP
Re: doubt with autopkgtest for javascript packages
Hi,
Yes, do it, thanks!
Cheers,
Xavier
Le 9 novembre 2020 22:08:46 GMT+01:00, Sudip Mukherjee
a écrit :
>Hi Utkarsh and Xavier,
>
>On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 5:08 AM Utkarsh Gupta wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sudip,
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:21 AM Sudip Mukherjee
>> wrote:
>> > While going through packages to find autopkgtests which are
>> > superficial I noticed that some of of the javascript packages are
>> > doing just:
>> > nodejs -e "require('foo.js');"
>> >
>> > After reading the documentation at [1], it seems that it will just
>> > load the object in cache so that the exported properties and methods
>> > of the object can be used in the code.
>> > Can you please confirm if my understanding is correct and the tests
>> > are indeed superficial in nature as it is just loading the object and
>> > not actually using any of the exported methods or properties.
>>
>> You're indeed correct and these are just superficial test which just
>> helps in the preliminary check that things are in order (syntax wise
>> and that the module can be used and loaded).
>> From what I remember, most of these (at least from a bunch of those
>> that I have touched) are already marked as superficial. In case we can
>> get a list of tests that aren't yet superficial, fixing them should be
>> trivial! :)
>>
>> Thanks for all your work on this! \o/
>
>Thanks to both of you for the confirmation. I have attached the list.
>Do you want me to add them in my MBF list and raise bug reports for
>them?
>
>
>--
>Regards
>Sudip
--
Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec Courriel K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma
brièveté.
Re: doubt with autopkgtest for javascript packages
Hi Utkarsh and Xavier,
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 5:08 AM Utkarsh Gupta wrote:
>
> Hi Sudip,
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:21 AM Sudip Mukherjee
> wrote:
> > While going through packages to find autopkgtests which are
> > superficial I noticed that some of of the javascript packages are
> > doing just:
> > nodejs -e "require('foo.js');"
> >
> > After reading the documentation at [1], it seems that it will just
> > load the object in cache so that the exported properties and methods
> > of the object can be used in the code.
> > Can you please confirm if my understanding is correct and the tests
> > are indeed superficial in nature as it is just loading the object and
> > not actually using any of the exported methods or properties.
>
> You're indeed correct and these are just superficial test which just
> helps in the preliminary check that things are in order (syntax wise
> and that the module can be used and loaded).
> From what I remember, most of these (at least from a bunch of those
> that I have touched) are already marked as superficial. In case we can
> get a list of tests that aren't yet superficial, fixing them should be
> trivial! :)
>
> Thanks for all your work on this! \o/
Thanks to both of you for the confirmation. I have attached the list.
Do you want me to add them in my MBF list and raise bug reports for
them?
--
Regards
Sudip
js_pkg_list
Description: Binary data
Re: doubt with autopkgtest for javascript packages
Hi Sudip,
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:21 AM Sudip Mukherjee
wrote:
> While going through packages to find autopkgtests which are
> superficial I noticed that some of of the javascript packages are
> doing just:
> nodejs -e "require('foo.js');"
>
> After reading the documentation at [1], it seems that it will just
> load the object in cache so that the exported properties and methods
> of the object can be used in the code.
> Can you please confirm if my understanding is correct and the tests
> are indeed superficial in nature as it is just loading the object and
> not actually using any of the exported methods or properties.
You're indeed correct and these are just superficial test which just
helps in the preliminary check that things are in order (syntax wise
and that the module can be used and loaded).
>From what I remember, most of these (at least from a bunch of those
that I have touched) are already marked as superficial. In case we can
get a list of tests that aren't yet superficial, fixing them should be
trivial! :)
Thanks for all your work on this! \o/
- u
Re: doubt with autopkgtest for javascript packages
Le 08/11/2020 à 23:50, Sudip Mukherjee a écrit :
> Dear Javascript Maintainers,
>
> While going through packages to find autopkgtests which are
> superficial I noticed that some of of the javascript packages are
> doing just:
> nodejs -e "require('foo.js');"
>
> After reading the documentation at [1], it seems that it will just
> load the object in cache so that the exported properties and methods
> of the object can be used in the code.
> Can you please confirm if my understanding is correct and the tests
> are indeed superficial in nature as it is just loading the object and
> not actually using any of the exported methods or properties. The
> details about superficial autopkgtest can be seen at [2]. Since, I
> don't know anything about nodejs so I have not included these packages
> in my MBF mail and instead mailing you for confirmation.
Hi,
you're right, it's just a "syntax check", that's why such autopkgtest
are tagged as "superficial".
Note that some package not reviewed since 2 years may have a "require"
test not tagged as superficial.
Cheers,
Xavier
