Hi Liubov, On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 01:37:37PM +0200, Liubov Chuprikova wrote: > > I decided not to use the same tests that we run during the package build in > autopkgtest suite since these tests do not check executables and their > implementation requires additional useless code to be installed somewhere. > > Instead of this, it is possible to put into the run-unit-test script the > same commands that are recommended in "Quick Usage" paragraph of README.md > [1]. For this, I moved sample_data provided by upstream into a separate > package unicycler-data [2]. > > [1] https://github.com/rrwick/Unicycler#quick-usage > [2] > https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/unicycler/commit/a3b90a3a5c00e9b83a48c7746b4aa598202c8642
Makes perfectly sense to do real usage cases. (This is actually way better than running build time tests.) > While trying to run an autopkgtest with the commands in "Quick Usage" I got > the following error: > > Error: Pilon was found (/usr/bin/pilon) but does not work - either fix it, > specify a different location using --pilon_path or use --no_pilon to remove > Pilon dependency > > So something might be wrong with pilon package. I tried to rerun the tests > with --no_pilon option and got one more error: I can confirm that my colleagues who tried a conda installation also reported about issues with pilon. > Assembling reads with miniasm... empty result > Error: miniasm assembly failed Also something that needs investigation. > I think about the second one it would be better to ask upstream. May be even both ones. Would you mind doing this? > All in all, I cannot push an autopkgtest suite at the moment, I need more > time to fix it. So I think the package could be uploaded to unstable > meanwhile. Uploaded to new - lets see how fast it might be processed. Thanks a lot for your work on this Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de