Add test for chocolate-doom

[okurz]

doom was mentioned during a common criteria auditing meeting at SUSE as a fun side-note but I am also taking those seriously.

Verification run: https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/4658592

[github-actions]

Great PR! Please pay attention to the following items before merging:

Files matching lib/**.pm:

• Consider adding or extending unit tests in t/

This is an automatically generated QA checklist based on modified files.

[foursixnine]

This is only testing the chocolate-doom launcher - doesn't actually run/test doom and you would need to get written permission to add a wad file (unless you make your own)

I am also taking those seriously.

Perhaps too seriously :)

Also leave it only on development jobgroups.

[okurz]

This is only testing the chocolate-doom launcher - doesn't actually test chocolate-doom and you would need to get written permission to add a wad file (unless you make your own)

Yes, this is only testing the chocolate-doom launcher which is the essential part of the package. I don't see that as a hindrance.

Also leave it only on development jobgroups.

Why should we? I verified the test and don't see a need to stabilize further in a development job group.

[foursixnine]

ftr: https://www.doomworld.com/forum/topic/131121-a-beginners-guide-to-freedoom-playing-custom-wads-achieving-a-more-doom-like-experience/?tab=comments#comment-2539190

[foursixnine]

This is only testing the chocolate-doom launcher - doesn't actually test chocolate-doom and you would need to get written permission to add a wad file (unless you make your own)

Yes, this is only testing the chocolate-doom launcher which is the essential part of the package. I don't see that as a hindrance.

It isn't a hinderance, the test is incomplete. The error message you get, is way before anything besides default configuration is loaded: https://github.com/chocolate-doom/chocolate-doom/blob/bb9bb2324852db731d81ee8c1f16a9b0b0fc31df/src/doom/d_main.c#L1496

Also leave it only on development jobgroups.

Why should we? I verified the test and don't see a need to stabilize further in a development job group.

See above. The test isn't necessarily unstable, but is not testing any functionality.

[asmorodskyi]

LGTM

[asmorodskyi]

See above. The test isn't necessarily unstable, but is not testing any functionality.

it does :

1. package installation
2. even to get to this first window you can get some exception if installation totally broke

ofc. it is very minimal set , but correct me if I am wrong it is more then we have in master today , right ?

[asmorodskyi]

P.S. in case you wonder what I am doing in this PR , it is very simple I got caught by PR name :D