Plan / proposal: enable openQA update testing and potentially
gating on Rawhide updates
by Adam Williamson
Hi folks!
We've had openQA testing of updates for stable and branched releases,
and gating based on those tests, enabled for a while now. I believe
this is going quite well, and I think we addressed the issues reported
when we first enabled gating - Bodhi's gating status updates work more
smoothly now, and openQA respects Bodhi's "re-run tests" button so
failed tests can be re-triggered.
A few weeks ago, I enabled testing of Rawhide updates in the openQA
lab/stg instance. This was to see how smoothly the tests run, how often
we run into unexpected failures or problems, and whether the hardware
resources we have are sufficient for the extra load.
So far this has been going more smoothly than I anticipated, if
anything. The workers seem to keep up with the test load, even though
one out of three worker systems for the stg instance is currently out
of commission (we're using it to investigate a bug). We do get
occasional failures which seem to be related to Rawhide kernel slowness
(e.g. operations timing out that usually don't otherwise time out), but
on the whole, the level of false failures is (I would say) acceptably
low, enough that my current regime of checking the test results daily
and restarting failed ones that don't seem to indicate a real bug
should be sufficient.
So, I'd like to propose that we enable Rawhide update testing on the
production openQA instance also. This would cause results to appear on
the Automated Tests tab in Bodhi, but they would be only informational
(and unless the update was gated by a CI test, or somehow otherwise
configured not to be pushed automatically, updates would continue to be
pushed 'stable' almost immediately on creation, regardless of the
openQA results).
More significantly, I'd also propose that we turn on gating on openQA
results for Rawhide updates. This would mean Rawhide updates would be
held from going 'stable' (and included in the next compose) until the
gating openQA tests had run and passed. We may want to do this a bit
after turning on the tests; perhaps Fedora 37 branch point would be a
natural time to do it.
Currently this would usually mean a wait from update submission to
'stable push' (which really means that the build goes into the
buildroot, and will go into the next Rawhide compose when it happens)
of somewhere between 45 minutes and a couple of hours. It would also
mean that if Rawhide updates for inter-dependent packages are not
correctly grouped, the dependent update(s) will fail testing and be
gated until the update they depend on has passed testing and been
pushed. The tests for the dependent update(s) would then need to be re-
run, either by someone hitting the button in Bodhi or an openQA admin
noticing and restarting them, before the dependent update(s) could be
pushed.
In the worst case, if updated packages A and B both need the other to
work correctly but the updates are submitted separately, both updates
may fail tests and be blocked. This could only be resolved by waiving
the failures, or replacing the separate updates with an update
containing both packages.
All of those considerations are already true for stable and branched
releases, but people are probably more used to grouping updates for
stable and branched than doing it for Rawhide, and the typical flow of
going from a build to an update provides more opportunity to create
grouped updates for branched/stable. For Rawhide the easiest way to do
it if you need to do it is to do the builds in a side tag and use
Bodhi's ability to create updates from a side tag.
As with branched/stable, only critical path updates would have the
tests run and be gated on the results. Non-critpath updates would be
unaffected. (There's a small allowlist of non-critpath packages for
which the tests are also run, but they are not currently gated on the
results).
I think doing this could really help us keep Rawhide solid and avoid
introducing major compose-breaking bugs, at minimal cost. But it's a
significant change and I wanted to see what folks think. In particular,
if you find the existing gating of updates for stable/branched releases
to cause problems in any way, I'd love to hear about it.
Thanks folks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net
11 months
Mount filesystem
by Mark ＠ GMail
What's the best way to mount remote filesystems?
I'm using nfs but it seems really slow and when I mentioned it (here?
somewhere else?) there was a quite negative response about nfs itself.
It's possible I'm just seeing the difference between my local (solid
state) disk on a fast machine and the remote (spinny disk) filesystem
on a slower remote machine (they're only about six inches apart on a
1Gb network connection, so it's not *very* remote). However, with
"remote" website directories mounted locally they're much slower with
my local webserver than with the one on that slower machine, so I'm
inclined to suspect nfs... is that unfair?
(I know this isn't a particularly KDE related issue. Please don't make
me rejoin the Fedora list, they're really mean!)
Both machines are running F37, both updated every week.
1 year
deleting pop-ups in okular
by Gian Piero Puccioni
Hi,
I am searching for the best way of deleting popups and inline annotations in Okular(v. 22.12.3).
At the moment it seems that the only way is open the sidebar, choose annotations, expand the list find out which one is the one you want to delete, right click and finally delete. Not exactly simple , is there another way I am overlooking? I thought that right clicking on the icon or the annotation would open the same menu with delete but it doesn't work.
Thanks,
G
1 year
Yakuake starts with the terminal open
by Patrick O'Callaghan
I've used Yakuake for years and like it, but recently it has started in
a open state, i.e. the terminal pane covers most of my desktop when I
log in (it's part of my saved session). I can't find a way to change
this, and have the "Open on startup" toggle unset.
Is this a bug?
poc
1 year, 1 month
[F38] GTK and any Flatpak apps are extremely slow in Plasma
by Scott Beamer
Greetings,
About 10 days ago, I noticed that any GTK app, and all Flatpak apps
(including Qt-based apps) run very, very slowly. in Plasma.
And sometimes, they don't launch at all on the first try.
And I sometimes get error messages like this launching some GTK apps:
"Did not receive a reply. Possible causes include: the remote
application did not send a reply, the message bus security policy
blocked the reply, the reply timeout expired, or the network connection
was broken."
I started to post this to the fedora-test list, since it's a beta
release, but I recall being told that anything KDE has to go to this
list, so here I am.
I'd file a bug report, but one may have already been filed, and I'm not
sure what to file it under.
Thoughts?
TIA
Scott
1 year, 1 month
