Re: Test for portals passes even when file portal is broken

Demi Marie Obenour
2025-12-06T13:27:24Z

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1606 bytes --]

On 12/6/25 07:32, Alyssa Ross wrote:
> Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 12/6/25 07:26, Alyssa Ross wrote:
>>> Demi Marie Obenour <demiobenour@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> While trying to sandbox the file chooser portal, I broke it.
>>>> This caused files not to be saved, resulting in silent data loss.
>>>> Unfortunately, the integration test still passed.
>>>>
>>>> Is this a bug in the test? Is there a better alternative to manual
>>>> testing?
>>>
>>> Not presently, but we can work on improving the test. The current
>>> portal test was written as a regression test for a specific issue we
>>> had. It's quite hard to test completely end to end but we could do a
>>> lot better.
>>>
>>> I would quite like to spend some time in February or so working on our
>>> tests.
>>
>> Would it make sense to use openQA for this? Qubes OS uses openQA
>> and it works very well. openQA is written in Perl, but it’s the
>> best tool I know of for this.
>
> First blocker there would be packaging openQA in Nixpkgs. I do not
> personally relish the idea of doing that.

Would it be possible to instead use a Fedora container? openQA is
packaged in Fedora. Qubes OS uses dedicated CI machines for openQA,
so I'm not worried about whether this would be permitted on your dev
box or the binary cache builders.

I use Fedora for everything that isn't Spectrum-related dev work,
so I know how to maintain a Fedora system. That said, a container
shouldn't need much (if any) ongoing maintenance.
--
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 7253 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]