[pacman-dev] [PATCH] New sync070.py pactest

[Xavier]

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Nagy Gabor<ngaba at bibl.u-szeged.hu> wrote:
>> >From cfcaa50b83d6ce09a026e8275f19ce0665365e31 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
>> >2001
>> From: Nagy Gabor <ngaba at bibl.u-szeged.hu>
>> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:04:29 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] New sync070.py pactest
>>
>> This pactest tests the cooperation between front-end and back-end in
>> case of "-S provision" operation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nagy Gabor <ngaba at bibl.u-szeged.hu>
>
> This pactest currently fails. It shows that the current "sync
> addtarget" is quite messy. Most of the work (search for provision,
> install group) is done in the front-end, some of the work done in the
> back-end (interpret '/', avoid duplicated targets, and the
> "conversion" from pmpkg_t to pmsyncpkg_t). The only information
> back-end can pass to front-end is the package name, which is not
> enough (that's why the pactest fails). As a possible fix, we could
> patch front-end to give more concrete info to backend (to
> sync_addtarget) by using 'db/package' format. But I think that
> still would be ugly, the back-end should be able to say, that he wants
> to add _this_ (pmpkg_t*) target (API change). IMHO most of the -S
> provision/group work should be done by back-end, thus we could hide
> some public functions (whatprovides, etc.). Unfortunately an other
> problem pops up here: the hackish communication between back-end and
> user ("Select packages to install from foo group...").
>
> Conlusion? I don't know. Clearly, the "add provision" and "add group"
> analogous to "add literal", that's why these codeparts should be in
> back-end. But user<->back-end communication is not perfect atm...
>

This issue is related to FS#15141 : http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/15141
Nagy, this pactest has never been added, and it's not in your git repo either?
We definitely need some work in this area, so I am curious to know if
you've already tried something.