Project

General

Profile

Feature #10147

Make omitted --old-iso default to --iso in the automated test suite

Added by anonym over 4 years ago. Updated over 4 years ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
Test suite
Target version:
Start date:
09/02/2015
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
test/10147-default-old-iso
Type of work:
Code
Blueprint:
Starter:
Affected tool:

Description

Instead of erroring out, let's just make the old Tails ISO be the same as the ISO being tested when --old-iso is omitted. This will sill results in us testing the most important thing we want to test, i.e. that the Tails Installer works in the ISO being tested.

Then we can also remove the @old_iso tag.

Associated revisions

Revision 1bfb2dd3 (diff)
Added by anonym over 4 years ago

Make --old-iso default to --iso if omitted.

Using the same ISO for the USB upgrade tests most often still does
what we want, e.g. test that the current version of Tails being tested
has a working Tails installer. Hence this seems like a reasonable
default. (Also note that an --old-iso may have changes that make it
impossible to run in the next versions automated test suite, and then
this is almost a requirement.)

Will-fix: #10147

Revision 223d17fa
Added by bertagaz over 4 years ago

Merge branch 'test/10147-default-old-iso' into stable

Fix-committed: #10147

History

#1 Updated by intrigeri over 4 years ago

Great idea! I've always wondered why we had that filename check (and I've often cheated by simply copying the same ISO under another name, to use it as --old-iso).

#2 Updated by anonym over 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress

#3 Updated by anonym over 4 years ago

  • Assignee changed from anonym to kytv
  • % Done changed from 0 to 50
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA
  • Feature Branch set to test/10147-default-old-iso

I suppose this whole idea is debatable, so beyond reviewing and testing, please give me your opinions!

#4 Updated by anonym over 4 years ago

intrigeri wrote:

I've always wondered why we had that filename check

Well, it seemed like a reasonable sanity check if we require the --old-iso to an earlier edition. That implies that they cannot be the same. Crappy, I know. :)

(and I've often cheated by simply copying the same ISO under another name, to use it as --old-iso).

Me too (to avoid the above "cleverness")! :S

#5 Updated by kytv over 4 years ago

  • Assignee changed from kytv to intrigeri

I like this.

Code review passes. Testing with with omitting --old-iso and including it passes.

Would merge. :)

#6 Updated by bertagaz over 4 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to 11
  • % Done changed from 50 to 100

#7 Updated by bertagaz over 4 years ago

  • Assignee deleted (intrigeri)
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

Looks good! Merged in stable.

#8 Updated by intrigeri over 4 years ago

Looks good! Merged in stable.

Yay! Added f68ae35 on top (master branch) so that we don't forget to pass --old-iso at release testing time.

#9 Updated by bertagaz over 4 years ago

  • Status changed from 11 to Resolved
  • QA Check deleted (Pass)

Also available in: Atom PDF