Hi Nilesh, On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 10:23:32AM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote: > You're likely aware that this is already implemented and merged, but thinking > more about it, I feel the wording below is a bit confusing or even wrong.
Thank you for your continued care about this. I much appreciate that. > > If a build dependency is > > required for running build-time tests or installed tests, it should > > be annotated <!nocheck> <!noinsttest>. Then it can only be skipped > > when supplying both profiles at the same time. > > This gives the impression that every single build dependency that is used > for testing should be annotated with both of !nocheck and !noinsttest. > > This seems incorrect? This is not what I meant to convey indeed. > My understanding is that it is applicable for only the cases where tests are > built > at runtime _and_ also installed as a (separate) binary package. > If it is just a build-test dep without installing the tests, just !nocheck > should be enough. Yes. > Do you mind rewording this and sending across a MR? I'll be happy to quickly > merge that. There are several cases here and we may want to consider the most common patterns. I think by far the most common pattern is not having installed tests. At that point, on ignores noinsttest and just goes with nocheck. The second most common pattern probably is not having any tests. Neither of these are relevant to the tag as it only comes up once you skip installing anything based on nocheck. So when the developer reads the tag they are quite definitely dealing with installed tests. Most commonly, installed tests are also run. So my expectation is that the common case here is needing both. That's why I specifically added it. Would the following rephrasing improve the situation? | If a build dependency is required both for running build-time tests | and for building installed tests, ... Helmut
