bug#62694: 30.0.50; eglot-tests fails with recent pylsp

[João Távora]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>
>> Cc: 62694@debbugs.gnu.org,  João Távora
>>  <joaotavora@gmail.com>
>> Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2023 14:13:32 +0200
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> Hi Eli,
>> 
>> >> Alternatively, if helping me with that check or adding pip install
>> >> or not installing debian's pylsp on EMBA is too much to ask, then
>> >> just delete all the pylsp tests.
>> >
>> > Michael, does EMBA run all the tests, or does it skip, say, the
>> > 'unstable' ones?  If the latter, how about marking these specific
>> > tests as 'unstable'? would that solve the problem?
>> 
>> Sure, the :unstable tag suppresses a test for all "make test" invocation
>> variants. I've proposed this a while ago for some eglot tests, but João
>> didn't agree because "the tests are stable".
>
> Given João's reluctance to help you to find a better solution, 

FTR I've given a solution about 20 times now that was ignored
repeteadly.  There is no general bullet-proof solution for the problem
of broken or misbehaving installations of external tools.  So these
tests cannot ever be "stable".  You can mark them _all_ unstable.

FTR I've given a solution known to be working in an Ubuntu-based CI
system, very similar to Debian, for almost 5 years now.  Noone seems to
be heeding it, so what can I do?

FTR I've explained at length why the "better solution" that you and
Michael are conjecturing to be very easy is beyond me.  In my analysis,
there is no simple Elisp code that can, in this pylsp case, easily
discern between a functioning installation and a malfunctioning one.
I've asked for your suggestions on how this can be done and I've not
received any concrete ideas.

FTR, earlier this year, I took Michael's idea of adding a version check
to clangd for eglot-tests.el because it was relatively easy and cheap
and shown to be working.  _Not_ because there were any reports of people
with old clangd running make check (absolutely 0 of those too), but
because I found it easy to do so (and why not appease good old
Michael?).  There the argument was that in that old Debian Stable debian
system of EMBA it was not easy to install a newer clangd.  OK.  But, for
pylsp that is _not_ the case at all, it's a simple one liner.

So if anyone is being stubborn here, it's _not_ me.

João