- [x] Have you followed the guidelines for contributing? - [x] Have you signed the [CLA](http://www.ubuntu.com/legal/contributors/)? - [x] Have you successfully run `make lint && make test`? - [ ] Have you added an entry to the changelog (`docs/reference/changelog.rst`)? --- ## Description Added comprehensive integration tests for the make plugin that were previously missing. The tests validate basic functionality and parameter forwarding using a parametrized test approach with local test fixtures. ## Changes Made - Created `test_make.py` with integration tests for the make plugin - Added test fixtures including a simple C program with Makefile for testing parameter forwarding - Used pytest parametrization to reduce code duplication while testing multiple scenarios - Refactored tests based on code review feedback to use string literals instead of lambda functions - Removed conditional validation logic to improve test maintainability - Removed accidentally committed CodeQL-generated file (`_codeql_detected_source_root`) - Merged main branch and resolved conflicts in `.gitignore` The tests include: 1. **Basic functionality test** - Verifies build and install using a simple C program with Makefile 2. **Parameter forwarding test** - Validates `make-parameters` are passed correctly via compile-time preprocessor definitions Test structure follows existing plugin patterns (cmake, scons, autotools) with local test fixtures and pytest integration. ## Note on Real-World Project Tests Initial attempts to include a real-world project test (tree utility) were removed based on code review feedback. The override-build approach used didn't actually test the make plugin behavior, as it duplicated make functionality with bash commands. Additionally, most real-world make-based projects either use autotools (covered by test_autotools.py) or have Makefiles that don't properly respect DESTDIR for all installation targets, making them unsuitable for isolated make plugin testing. ## Testing - ✅ All 4 test variations (2 test cases × 2 partition configurations) pass successfully - ✅ Linting passes with ruff - ✅ Tests follow the same patterns as other plugin integration tests - ✅ Merge conflicts resolved with main branch <!-- START COPILOT CODING AGENT SUFFIX --> <details> <summary>Original prompt</summary> > > ---- > > *This section details on the original issue you should resolve* > > <issue_title>Add integration tests for make plugin</issue_title> > <issue_description>### What needs to get done > > The make plugin needs some integration tests to validate its behavior. Turns out, we never had any... > > ### Why it needs to get done > > Spawned from this TODO comment: > https://github.com/canonical/craft-parts/blob/a20b49d1b27ecd00ab74eb786d0f2403184adc97/tests/integration/plugins/test_make.py#L1</issue_description> > > <agent_instructions>Use at least one real-world repository that uses make to test the plugin. Use the cmake plugin integration tests as a starting point. > </agent_instructions> > > ## Comments on the Issue (you are @copilot in this section) > > <comments> > </comments> > </details> - Fixes canonical/craft-parts#1334 <!-- START COPILOT CODING AGENT TIPS --> --- ✨ Let Copilot coding agent [set things up for you](https://github.com/canonical/craft-parts/issues/new?title=✨+Set+up+Copilot+instructions&body=Configure%20instructions%20for%20this%20repository%20as%20documented%20in%20%5BBest%20practices%20for%20Copilot%20coding%20agent%20in%20your%20repository%5D%28https://gh.io/copilot-coding-agent-tips%29%2E%0A%0A%3COnboard%20this%20repo%3E&assignees=copilot) — coding agent works faster and does higher quality work when set up for your repo.