[DRE-maint] Bug#854714: trocla: FTBFS randomly (failing tests)

[Antoine Beaupré]

On 2019-04-08 12:43:21, Santiago Vila wrote:
> --- a/spec/trocla_spec.rb
> +++ b/spec/trocla_spec.rb
> @@ -66,12 +66,6 @@ describe "Trocla" do
>          expect(pwd.length).to eq(16)
>          expect(pwd).not_to match(/[={}\[\]\?%\*()&!]+/)
>        end
> -      it 'is possible to combine profiles but first profile wins 3' do
> -        pwd = @trocla.password('some_test','plain', 'profiles' => ['mysql','login'])
> -        expect(pwd).not_to be_empty
> -        expect(pwd.length).to eq(32)
> -        expect(pwd).to match(/[+%\/@=\?_.,:]+/)
> -      end
>      end
>    end

I think a possibly more portable patch could be something like this,
what do you think?

diff --git i/spec/trocla_spec.rb w/spec/trocla_spec.rb
index 2826916..6fc263a 100644
--- i/spec/trocla_spec.rb
+++ w/spec/trocla_spec.rb
@@ -72,6 +72,7 @@
           expect(pwd).not_to match(/[={}\[\]\?%\*()&!]+/)
         end
         it 'is possible to combine profiles but first profile wins 3' do
+          skip
           pwd = @trocla.password('some_test3','plain', 'profiles' => ['mysql','login'])
           expect(pwd).not_to be_empty
           expect(pwd.length).to eq(32)


That way if changes in the function are less likely to cause a conflict
and more likely to apply with fuzz... We could even give context for the
skip, I think, but my ruby is ... rare, and so is documentation on
rspec, IMHO.

a.

-- 
The United States is a nation of laws:
badly written and randomly enforced.
                        - Frank Zappa