anonym wrote (13 May 2014 15:53:17 GMT) : > My suggestion would be that we don't use the emergency shitdown, and > simply sends a `halt`, which we did before, and which was much more > reliable. I know you want us to the same ways we except our users to > use, and I agree, but well... can't we just make a dedicated test for > the emergency shutdown instead?
Yes, it would be good to have the USB feature a bit more robust, while not dropping a useful test => fine with me, please go ahead. >> 2. Scenario: Booting Tails from a USB drive upgraded from DVD with >> persistence enabled # features/usb_install.feature:182 >> [...] >> And the boot device has safe access rights >> # features/step_definitions/usb.rb:326 >> And the expected persistent files are present in the filesystem >> # features/step_definitions/usb.rb:423 >> Could not find expected file in persistent directory >> /etc/NetworkManager/system-connections (RuntimeError) >> >> Same in "Booting Tails from a USB drive upgraded from USB with >> persistence enabled" and "Booting a USB drive upgraded from ISO >> with persistence enabled". >> >> And on next run, I cannot reproduce this. Weird. > It's notable that that particular persistence preset's directory was > changed in feature/wheezy. What was your --old-iso when you ran the > first test vs the second? A build from the devel branch, from a few days earlier. > Could it have been a Wheezy-based image from > before the persistence preset was changed? IIRC, this change was made a while ago, and I don't think I have any such ISO anymore. >> 3. Scenario: Iceweasel should not have any plugins enabled # >> features/torified_browsing.feature:26 > [...] > This is fixed now. Congrats! \o/ >> 4. Scenario: Memory erasure on an old computer # >> features/erase_memory.fe >> [...] >> And I shutdown and wait for Tails to finish wiping the memory # >> features/step_definitions/erase_memory.rb:164 >> Then I find very few patterns in the guest's memory # >> features/step_definitions/erase_memory.rb:140 >> Pattern coverage: 0.314% (11 MiB) >> 0.314% of the memory is filled with the pattern, but less than 0.250% >> was expected (RuntimeError) >> >> I got this once out of two tries. Is it an acceptable drawback of >> how the test suite works, or a real problem? > To me it just shows that with the particular kernel (or whatever) that > we happen to use now require us to bump the highly arbitrary 0.25% to > 0.5%, perhaps. Without some more rigorous guideline to what we think is > acceptable, arbitrary is what we've got. What do you think? Fair enough. Maybe we want a low-priority Research ticket to look at this later, at least to document that we have an issue here? Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
