From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jelle Licht Subject: bug#37421: [PATCH] gnu: node: Disable tests that fail with openssl@1.1.1d. Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 20:57:53 +0200 Message-ID: <87tv9cgjbi.fsf@jlicht.xyz> References: <877e6839f0.fsf@wioo.waw.pl> <20190916135228.22045-1-me@tobias.gr> <87ef0g5ilf.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:43419) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i9wCN-0005rQ-Co for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:58:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i9wCH-00075K-RP for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:58:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:42255) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i9wCH-000754-N5 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:58:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i9wCH-00025E-Lw for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:58:01 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87ef0g5ilf.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , 37421@debbugs.gnu.org Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Hello, > > Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix > skribis: > >> Work around . >> >> * gnu/packages/node.scm (node)[arguments]: Disable failing tests. > > [...] > >> + ;; FIXME: These tests fail with openssl@1.1.1d. >> + (for-each delete-file >> + '("test/parallel/test-crypto-binary-default.js" >> + "test/parallel/test-crypto-dh.js")) > > It may be the best short-term solution. Agreed, if ungoogled-chromium works with this that would probably be the best option. > > Could we take a look at what these failures are about to see how bad > that might be? Interestingly enough, https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/3881 notes issues with exactly these two tests. Perhaps there is a regressions in our case?