New version of python-numpy breaks autopkgtests of python-hdf5storage in testing

[Sandro Tosi]

given how all the failing tests are about empty arrays, it's possible that
current output is no longer the same as before

in the release notes for 1.14.0
https://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy-1.14.2/release.html i see "Truth testing
of an empty array is deprecated. To check if an array is not empty, use
array.size > 0." which could be related - can you get in touch with
hdf5storage upstream about it?
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:51 PM Paul Gevers <elbrus at debian.org> wrote:

> Dear maintainers,

> [This e-mail is automatically sent. V2 (20180508)]

> As recently announced [1] Debian is now running autopkgtests in testing
> to check if the migration of a new source package causes regressions. It
> does this with the binary packages of the new version of the source
> package from unstable.

> With a recent upload of python-numpy the autopkgtest of python-hdf5storage
> started to fail in testing [2]. This is currently delaying the migration
> of python-numpy version 1:1.14.3-2 [3].

> This e-mail is meant to trigger prompt direct communication between the
> maintainers of the involved packages as one party has insight in what
> changed and the other party insight in what is being tested. Please
> therefore get in touch with each other with your ideas about what the
> causes of the problem might be, proposed patches, etc. A regression in a
> reverse dependency can be due to one of the following reasons (of course
> not complete):
> * new bug in the candidate package (fix the package)
> * bug in the test case that only gets triggered due to the update (fix
>    the reverse dependency, but see below)
> * out-of-date reference date in the test case that captures a former bug
>    in the candidate package (fix the reverse dependency, but see below)
> * deprecation of functionality that is used in the reverse dependency
>    and/or its test case (discussion needed)
> Triaging tips are being collected on the Debian Wiki [4].

> Unfortunately sometimes a regression is only intermittent. Ideally this
> should be fixed, but it may be OK to just have the autopkgtest retried
> (a link is available in the excuses [3]).

> There are cases where it is required to have multiple packages migrate
> together to have the test cases pass, e.g. when there was a bug in a
> regressing test case of a reverse dependency and that got fixed. In that
> case the test cases need to be triggered with both packages from
> unstable (reply to this e-mail and/or contact the ci-team [5]) or just
> wait until the aging time is over (if the fixed reverse dependency
> migrates before that time, the failed test can be retriggered [3]).

> Of course no system is perfect. In case a framework issue is suspected,
> don't hesitate to raise the issue via BTS or to the ci-team [5] (reply to
> me is also fine for initial cross-check).

> To avoid stepping on peoples toes, this e-mail does not automatically
> generate a bug in the BTS, but it is highly recommended to forward this
> e-mail there (psuedo-header boilerplate below [6,7]) in case it is
> clear which package should solve this regression.

> It can be appropriate to file an RC bug against the depended-on package,
> if the regression amounts to an RC bug in the depending package, and to
> keep it open while the matter is investigated. That will prevent
> migration of an RC regression.

> If the maintainers of the depending package don't have available effort
> to fix a problem, it is appropriate for the maintainers of the
> depended-on package to consider an NMU of the depending package. Any
> such an NMU should take place in accordance with the normal NMU rules.

> Neither of the above steps should be seen as hostile; they are part of
> trying to work together to keep Debian in tip-top shape.

> If you find that you are not able to agree between you about the right
> next steps, bug severities, etc., please try to find a neutral third
> party to help you mediate and/or provide a third opinion. Failing that
> your best bet is probably to post to debian-devel.

> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2018/05/msg00001.html
> [2] https://ci.debian.net/packages/p/python-hdf5storage/testing/amd64/
> [3] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=python-numpy
> [4] https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/TriagingTips
> [5] #debci on oftc or debian-ci at lists.debian.org
> [6] python-numpy has an issue
> ============
> Source: python-numpy
> Version: 1:1.14.3-2
> Severity: normal or higher
> Control: affects -1 src:python-hdf5storage
> User: debian-ci at lists.debian.org
> Usertags: breaks
> ============
> [7] python-hdf5storage has an issue
> ============
> Source: python-hdf5storage
> Version: 0.1.14-1
> Severity: normal or higher
> Control: affects -1 src:python-numpy
> User: debian-ci at lists.debian.org
> Usertags: needs-update
> ============



-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SandroTosi