Hi,
Mathieu Othacehe <othac...@gnu.org> skribis:
> Thanks for the fix! The jami and jami-provisioning tests are also broken
> because of what looks like to be the same issue:
>
> One does not simply initialize the client: Another daemon is detected
> /gnu/store/01phrvxnxrg1q0gxa35g7f77q06crf6v-shepherd-marionette.scm:1:1718:
> ERROR:
> 1. &action-exception-error:
> service: jami
> action: start
> key: match-error
> args: ("match" "no matching pattern" #f)
> Jami Daemon 11.0.0, by Savoir-faire Linux 2004-2019
> https://jami.net/
> [Video support enabled]
> [Plugins support enabled]
Yes, I noticed that, but I’m not sure how to apply a similar workaround.
> I think we don't have the right approach here: we should check that the
> system tests are passing before pushing series and not adapt the tests
> afterwards.
Yes, apologies for that.
> Historically this was difficult because the system tests were often in a
> semi-broken state. Before the Shepherd update the tests were however all
> passing (modulo rare intermittent failures).
>
> As it's not always obvious what's going to break the system tests and
> what's not (simple package update can easily break them), it would be
> really nice to have mandatory commit verification.
>
> The mumi/cuirass gateway that has already been discussed could really
> help us here. If some people are motivated, we could split the work and
> introduce such a mechanism.
Yes, I agree; an “always green” ‘master’ branch would be great.
Do you have milestones in mind for “commit verification”?
As I see it, the difficulty is that we’ve been looking at a horizon of
features à la GitLab-CI without being quite sure how to get there (apart
from deploying GitLab or a similar tool, that is).
A first step that comes to mind would be an easier way to set up
transient jobsets for a branch (or, ideally, for an issue: the thing
would apply patches and create the branch).
Thoughts?
(Maybe worth moving to guix-devel.)
Ludo’.
