Re: [PATCH 5/5] allow hooks to throw parser error on incorrectly provided arguments
by Kamil Paral
----- "Will Woods" <wwoods(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 15:32 +0200, Kamil Páral wrote:
> > The hooks can now use their process_testdata method to check the
> > correctness of provided options and arguments and abort the program
> if
> > something is wrong. It also allows hooks to have some mandatory
> options
> > defined.
>
> This patch looks fine, but one question:
>
> > -def process_testdata(opts, args, arch, **extra):
> > +def process_testdata(parser, opts, args, **extra):
>
> Where'd 'arch' go? Was it just not needed?
That was part of my control.autoqa patch:
http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=autoqa.git;a=commitdiff;h=55ddd92dfffe...
If you see the current workflow, hook.process_testdata() is now called
just once for the whole job, not several times for every arch. This is
needed, because hook.process_testdata() must be executed before
control.autoqa is evaluated, and control.autoqa needs also to be run
just once for the whole job, not once for every arch (otherwise
control.autoqa wouldn't be able to modify the archlist).
The result is the hooks are now not able to modify test input values
according to a specific architecture. They have to pass some general
value or the autoqa harness must be run several times for different
architectures if needed (in the aforementioned patch I have modified
watch-composes.py in exactly that way - it runs autoqa several times,
because different archs need different arguments).
13 years, 8 months
[PATCH #199] Standardize AutoQA test arguments
by Kamil Paral
This is an attempt to solve ticket #199:
https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/199
I standardized the test argument names amongst the hooks as much as possible.
I also wanted to rename 'kojitag' to just 'tag', but 'tag' is a reserved
word in Autotest harness (similarly to 'url'), so I left it intact.
As usual, I also added a few more goodies to the patchset, so we now use native
python objects for passing lists of arguments, and the hooks are now able to
specify mandatory arguments and fail on bad input.
I tested the changes a little, no regressions found.
Comments welcome.
Thanks,
Kamil
13 years, 8 months
Re: [PATCH 1/5] Use native python list when passing list of ENVRs for bodhi tests
by Kamil Paral
----- "Will Woods" <wwoods(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 15:32 +0200, Kamil Páral wrote:
> > ---
> > hooks/post-bodhi-update/README | 2 +-
> > hooks/post-bodhi-update/hook.py | 3 +--
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> One thing to note - you've changed the definition of testdata.
> Previously, we (informally) defined it to be a dictionary of key=val
> pairs, where both key and val were objects of type 'str'.
>
> Passing a value of type 'list' will still work, because autoqa is
> using
> %r to format testdata when it writes it into the control file, and the
> result of repr(listval) can be evaluated to reproduce the original
> list.
>
> So this is fine - in fact we can pass list, str, dict, set, or any
> other
> type where the result of repr(val) can be evaluated back into the
> original object.
>
> But NOTE: while I'm fairly sure that all builtin python types should
> work, this does NOT mean we can throw ANY python object into testdata
> and have it come out the other side intact. For example, if we tried
> to
> pass (let's say) a bugzilla.Bug() into testdata, we'd end up with a
> str
> value like:
> '<Bug #1337 on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/xmlrpc.cgi at 0x999f06c>'
>
> But that's being a little pedantic - since we're populating testdata
> from the results of OptionParser, we're unlikely to be passing
> anything
> other than str and lists of strs. So this patch is fine, so long as we
> remember not to get too fancy with our values in the future.
I have quite forgotten we write out this data into the control file.
But still, passing native python list seemed to me a better choice than
using comma/space separated strings (different approach for different
hooks) and easier for test writers. Sure, we can't pass on arbitrary
object type.
13 years, 8 months
[PATCH] treat ghost files appropriately, i.e. match rpm's behaviour
by François Cami
From: Francois Cami <fcami(a)fedoraproject.org>
---
tests/conflicts/potential_conflict.py | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/conflicts/potential_conflict.py b/tests/conflicts/potential_conflict.py
index 62f62f3..c18dba0 100755
--- a/tests/conflicts/potential_conflict.py
+++ b/tests/conflicts/potential_conflict.py
@@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ for repo in my.repos.listEnabled():
print repo.urls[0]
for pkg in my.pkgSack.returnNewestByNameArch():
- for fn in pkg.filelist + pkg.ghostlist:
+ for fn in pkg.filelist:
if not fulldict.has_key(fn): fulldict[fn] = []
fulldict[fn].append(pkg)
--
1.7.2
13 years, 8 months
[AutoQA] #216: pst: signature check?
by fedora-badges
#216: pst: signature check?
--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
Reporter: wwoods | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Package Update Acceptance Test Plan - package sanity tests
Component: tests | Version: 1.0
Keywords: |
--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
It's not explicitly stated in the Package Sanity Test Plan but I think
verifying the package signature might be part of Package Sanity?
We need to verify package signatures for packages that are supposed to be
pushed as updates - there have been at least two recent incidents of
unsigned packages landing in the live repos.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/216>
AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org>
Automated QA project
13 years, 8 months
Correct handling of %ghost
by James Laska
Greetings,
Testing against F-14-Alpha highlighted several potential file conflicts between MTA's. For details see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=621864. Long story short, turns out potential_conflicts.py is incorrectly including %ghost files when comparing files between packages. François Cami and Seth Vidal made the following patch and tested to confirm that the %ghost files are no longer included when comparing file conflicts.
Thanks,
James
13 years, 8 months
New test for autoqa - upgradepath
by Vojtěch Aschenbrenner
Hi,
I created new test for autoqa. Upgradepath will check if version of
pushing package has good version. See ticket #123 at
https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/123 . This is first version,
which will NOT consider update-testing repository (just dist-fXX and
dist-fXX-update).
You can get it from upgradepath branch in git.
Try for example:
$ autoqa post-bodhi-update --updateid FEDORA-2010-11132 \
--title mc-4.7.1-2.fc11 --targettag dist-f11 1:mc-4.7.1-2.fc11 \
--arch x86_64 -t upgradepath --local
This will check if 1:mc-4.7.1-2.fc11 could be pushed to dist-f11. So
every lower repos have to have lower or equal version and higher repos
higher or equal version.
Next version will consider update-testing repos. Request for comments
:-).
Vojta
13 years, 8 months
AutoQATest work (jskladan branch) update
by Will Woods
So! I've been testing Josef's work on the AutoQATest class and I think
I've got the rough edges filed down so it's basically working as
expected!
You can check out my updates to his work on the jskladan branch - I'm
going to keep testing things on our local setup here until I'm more sure
it's ready, and then I should hopefully be merging that branch on Monday
or Tuesday.
-w
13 years, 8 months
