13/05/14 22:12, intrigeri wrote: > 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.
See commit fc95510. >>> 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? Perhaps it's not so notable since that's the first preset that will be tested, so probably all of them were not there. > 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. Sorry, then I have no idea. >>> 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. Done in commit bf1795b. > Maybe we want a low-priority Research ticket to look at > this later, at least to document that we have an issue here? Filed as #7313. Cheers! _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to [email protected].
