On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 8:11 AM Iain Lane <la...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > +skippable > + The test might need to be skipped for reasons that cannot be > + described by an existing restriction such as isolation-machine or > + breaks-testbed, but must instead be detected at runtime. If the > + test exits with status 77 (a convention borrowed from Automake), it > + will be treated as though it had been skipped. If it exits with any > + other status, its success or failure will be derived from the exit > + status and stderr as usual. Test authors must be careful to ensure > + that ``skippable`` tests never exit with status 77 for reasons that > + should be treated as a failure. >
Is it ok to use skippable for arches where the test is known to not work? AFAIK there is no arch restriction support in d/t/control I would then mark the test as skippable, detect the arch at runtime, and if it's one we know it won't work, exit 77. I understand care must be taken to check the test and make sure it doesn't exit 77 for other reasons in that case. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel