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
