From unknown Wed Jun 18 00:16:02 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#78717 <78717@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#78717 <78717@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: New etc-profile-d-service-type test fails, breaking many other tests Reply-To: bug#78717 <78717@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 07:16:02 +0000 retitle 78717 New etc-profile-d-service-type test fails, breaking many othe= r tests reassign 78717 guix submitter 78717 45mg <45mg.writes@gmail.com> severity 78717 normal thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jun 08 02:38:16 2025 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Jun 2025 06:38:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50498 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uO9fc-0003YJ-4i for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2025 02:38:16 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:37742) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <45mg.writes@gmail.com>) id 1uO9fa-0003Y1-An for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2025 02:38:15 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <45mg.writes@gmail.com>) id 1uO9fR-0000pc-CB for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2025 02:38:05 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x441.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::441]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <45mg.writes@gmail.com>) id 1uO9fP-0006Ox-IQ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2025 02:38:05 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-x441.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-7406c6dd2b1so3823953b3a.0 for ; Sat, 07 Jun 2025 23:38:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1749364682; x=1749969482; darn=gnu.org; h=mime-version:message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=AaVhmMNBzbjLGOCyOvqoM86YDPsNiuKgXXT2ATqoHPI=; b=A+YHTBxGicyZd+TqxYs7Si8mg02JYgPM2o+SFHYVE1lYfe3+dSXtMODe/JM19p8RLD zuLyXyJMg7VZONfApqrkMBg6t1N7LwD8ZzCIx6iO15uvIukP2tOWrTG92yQxky5r8EM+ z/rKUeBg0RZsasW9OyxMOmlSjtMSz6OtFcZ1tpf5g8cQzUOZTIGTt0TBQIXagMWpXZFK zkSNFo47deFMv1zXLx8bOTFcNzQl2tE+iuRfDRFNjRdBoYSWPJASTQNtPdvjCTlssFfQ b9M2ouURThZfiqG5TF1N8aWRXnQVPv5QU55cK5Spw05p9fc6Q2j4zMc/JkWUM2/+DBCu uIIA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1749364682; x=1749969482; h=mime-version:message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=AaVhmMNBzbjLGOCyOvqoM86YDPsNiuKgXXT2ATqoHPI=; b=XQ/dEoWgnQmmo7Clpv10wSxoyCOI3gNfKMbLMhgTBQYZl4URKzN9OnfZE12igi4nU4 7wGP0h8zorfoaLibJM8McjO10ZijpPqv5qWZOJq5i/fuKKY+uJIxA1lb088L5MwnfbFv T2sSr6UxpwgMP1wizcv2x2v+ca6Bi5oQBBpj7OKtEzqv7piAXSROdFfgBswMU/IlKhRo Guz30uSIPrsKeiVLUuOsDz8t0tE00nUItFidv/1srrz7MhHlkNNzmGxKny5AoKBfAOtM 79FYrjTij2CJbZYraiQyckzGpaAqdQjr2Iew/kFACHuQT3wsnv+xWPdWI1WHww4oAa+Z fm+w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyMQy9ALIv+phzkHKFGPspRgXe+TBxC9MV6i5lnTV79Ei7S1Hpu /uaDDr54dLQXZmIiPDHJ1P3y0hQJ/8NKI2ecnoKbCSWBhsNR5oTUSXUy X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuI2HdexlhqJZ5j0VDewlFBTAmshvWHsrCd8lhH5ALBd4twtzLNCG82lejC4CI AFNjSHJgBR4oU+Z8Xz89OuxY8OjYqgGH0NCORWxXUWlA2D75vTF/DJbH+BG0g1CdbDYFOTCZnfh Q6gaEzBiA9Qw9Nb3GwEA0PPMYbxk2BsdoV14W9xKCcDM/SOpw392hFzE75BdxC9pRvXASjnaaSA BdMdXa+AQXANLg1RUpn8Y6L4iN9SGDhThN/VtV7lj+A9a4j8xzEnVJm442B+36ViiG8NARYL2yg aJzIDUYdPkGCPyKEIes/nDsdAp3nNmPHGcfSxHo9rkI1l39olEaOUMRCcVmOKVs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE3otEBvC5ZJs/r245d9fAB03PHYwCyqtB13aMKaEHp1PHjEuTy372ugQOs/pdkKslqvtlDDA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:6a09:b0:201:8a06:6e3b with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-21ee2596735mr13243335637.9.1749364681603; Sat, 07 Jun 2025 23:38:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from guix1 (utm3.nitt.edu. [14.139.162.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-7482b0c7edasm3728561b3a.137.2025.06.07.23.37.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 07 Jun 2025 23:38:01 -0700 (PDT) From: 45mg <45mg.writes@gmail.com> To: bug-guix@gnu.org Subject: New etc-profile-d-service-type test fails, breaking many other tests Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2025 06:38:00 +0000 Message-ID: <877c1mu4af.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::441; envelope-from=45mg.writes@gmail.com; helo=mail-pf1-x441.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -15 X-Spam_score: -1.6 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, PDS_BTC_ID=0.499, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: I noticed this when I ran the 'encrypted-home-os-key-file' test to test a new patch to [1], and it failed due to the '/etc/profile.d is sourced' test failing. Eventually I figured out [...] Content analysis details: (4.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [2001:470:142:0:0:0:0:17 listed in] [list.dnswl.org] 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (45mg.writes[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 0.5 PDS_BTC_ID FP reduced Bitcoin ID 2.5 BITCOIN_SPAM_05 BitCoin spam pattern 05 X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: Maxim Cournoyer X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 3.0 (+++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: I noticed this when I ran the 'encrypted-home-os-key-file' test to test a new patch to [1], and it failed due to the '/etc/profile.d is sourced' test failing. Eventually I figured out [...] Content analysis details: (3.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [2001:470:142:0:0:0:0:17 listed in] [list.dnswl.org] 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (45mg.writes[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 0.5 PDS_BTC_ID FP reduced Bitcoin ID -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager 2.5 BITCOIN_SPAM_05 BitCoin spam pattern 05 I noticed this when I ran the 'encrypted-home-os-key-file' test to test a new patch to [1], and it failed due to the '/etc/profile.d is sourced' test failing. Eventually I figured out that it fails on the latest master as well, and the latest CI run confirms this: https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/10936896/details Looking at the log file, you can see the failing test: https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/10936896/log/raw --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- ... Test begin: test-name: "/etc/profile.d is sourced" source-file: "/gnu/store/178h83msb53wf8v57zabi8s4q4ksfid8-encrypted-home-os-builder" source-line: 1 source-form: (test-assert "/etc/profile.d is sourced" (zero? (marionette-eval (quote (system "\n. /etc/profile\nset -e -x\ntest -f /etc/profile.d/test_profile_d.sh\ntest \"$PROFILE_D_OK\" = yes")) marionette))) Test end: result-kind: fail actual-value: #f ... --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Looking at some of the other failing tests, you can see that they fail in exactly the same way: encrypted-root-os https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/10936887/details encrypted-home-os https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/10936894/details jfs-root-os https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/10936890/details btrfs-root-os https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/10936905/details Before this, the last CI run that ran to completion was on commit 85b5c2c, which was before the etc/profile.d test was added. In total, there are 23 new failing tests from this CI run: https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/2062380?status=newly-failed The strange thing is, the etc/profile.d test passes if I run it normally as part of the basic tests, like this: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- guix shell -D guix --pure -- make check-system TESTS=basic --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- [1] https://yhetil.org/guix/87jz7rsu49.fsf@gnu.org/ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jun 08 13:55:36 2025 Received: (at 78717) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Jun 2025 17:55:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52835 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uOKF5-0003D9-Rt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2025 13:55:36 -0400 Received: from ditigal.xyz ([2a01:4f8:1c1b:6a1c::]:59822 helo=mail.ditigal.xyz) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uOKF3-0003Ct-1G for 78717@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Jun 2025 13:55:34 -0400 Received: by cerebrum (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 32004264 (TLSv1.3:TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256:256:NO); Sun, 8 Jun 2025 17:55:25 +0000 (UTC) From: Rutherther To: 78717@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: New etc-profile-d-service-type test fails, breaking many other tests In-Reply-To: <877c1mu4af.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2025 19:55:23 +0200 Message-ID: <87frga15kk.fsf@ditigal.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ditigal.xyz; i=@ditigal.xyz; q=dns/txt; s=20240917; t=1749405325; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=N6wI+xlso7WcpA0x+j8piFrgi29YpGTcYDwo/PeMkUQ=; b=lzz9BPy+rcSya3NKsTnTBQT4/8QiL6VBnNzOusjCABLwkPscyt34tqABNVu7KhPFsFDXK y4wvshHxlTwsueoG6JWEi1kX4JVRI+/r3HGajAVHzItTxl8J4A0OebffdKINfuRjWSWtYYp krxzEHfTT4sHO8KHhMIBrlPwfBIrlq0= X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi 45mg, > I noticed this when I ran the 'encrypted-home-os-key-file' test to test > a new patch to [1], and it failed due to the > '/etc/profile.d is sourced' test failing. Eventually I figure [...] Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ditigal.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD 0.0 T_PDS_BTC_NTLD Bitcoin suspect NTLD 0.0 PDS_BTC_ID FP reduced Bitcoin ID X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 78717 Cc: 45mg <45mg.writes@gmail.com> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi 45mg, > I noticed this when I ran the 'encrypted-home-os-key-file' test to test > a new patch to [1], and it failed due to the > '/etc/profile.d is sourced' test failing. Eventually I figure [...] Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ditigal.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD 1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD 0.0 T_PDS_BTC_NTLD Bitcoin suspect NTLD -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager 0.0 PDS_BTC_ID FP reduced Bitcoin ID Hi 45mg, > I noticed this when I ran the 'encrypted-home-os-key-file' test to test > a new patch to [1], and it failed due to the > '/etc/profile.d is sourced' test failing. Eventually I figured out that > it fails on the latest master as well, and the latest CI run confirms > this: > > https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/10936896/details > > Looking at the log file, you can see the failing test: > > https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/10936896/log/raw > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > ... > Test begin: > test-name: "/etc/profile.d is sourced" > source-file: "/gnu/store/178h83msb53wf8v57zabi8s4q4ksfid8-encrypted-home-os-builder" > source-line: 1 > source-form: (test-assert "/etc/profile.d is sourced" (zero? (marionette-eval (quote (system "\n. /etc/profile\nset -e -x\ntest -f /etc/profile.d/test_profile_d.sh\ntest \"$PROFILE_D_OK\" = yes")) marionette))) > Test end: > result-kind: fail > actual-value: #f > ... > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > Looking at some of the other failing tests, you can see that they fail > in exactly the same way: > > encrypted-root-os > https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/10936887/details > encrypted-home-os > https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/10936894/details > jfs-root-os > https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/10936890/details > btrfs-root-os > https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/10936905/details > > Before this, the last CI run that ran to completion was on commit > 85b5c2c, which was before the etc/profile.d test was added. In total, > there are 23 new failing tests from this CI run: > > https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/2062380?status=newly-failed > > The strange thing is, the etc/profile.d test passes if I run it normally > as part of the basic tests, like this: I don't think this is a strange thing at all. The basic test runs with test-basic-os operating-system, this os has the etc-profile-d-service-type. The other tests still use run-basic-test that checks basic stuff, including /etc/profile.d sourcing, but use different os definition, without the etc-profile-d-service-type. So there needs to happen one of those two things: 1. The run-basic-test procedure has to be modified to not expect /etc/profile.d always 2. The other tests have to use the os with etc-profile-d-service-type services, ie. by concating the services from basic-test-os. > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > guix shell -D guix --pure -- make check-system TESTS=basic > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > > [1] https://yhetil.org/guix/87jz7rsu49.fsf@gnu.org/ Rutherther