[AutoQA] #251: Move autotest applications into /usr/*bin
by fedora-badges
#251: Move autotest applications into /usr/*bin
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: jlaska | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: Packaging, Review, & Deployment
Component: packaging | Keywords:
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
The autotest package should supply binaries in /usr/bin/ ... so we can
rely on PATH and not have to call autotest with the full-path
(/usr/share/autotest/client/bin/autotest) when scheduling jobs in
'/usr/bin/autoqa'.
Alternatively, the autotest package could drop a script that updates PATH
appropriately into /etc/profile.d/autotest. But yuck.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/251>
AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org>
Automated QA project
11 years, 7 months
[AutoQA] #414: rats_install: run twice, once for updates, once for updates+updates-testing
by fedora-badges
#414: rats_install: run twice, once for updates, once for updates+updates-testing
--------------------------+-------------------------------
Reporter: kparal | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone: Nice to have soon
Component: tests | Keywords:
Blocked By: | Blocking:
--------------------------+-------------------------------
We decided it would be beneficial to run rats_install twice. Once for
stable updates only, once for main+updates, once for main+updates+updates-
testing. Currently we're running just the second option. The discussion is
here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20120319#t15:55:42
Change rats_install to execute twice and report both variants. The easiest
way is probably to modify 'control' file to execute the job twice and
modify some input argument to distinguish the two cases. Also we need to
change the summary accordingly so that we can easily distinguish that in
our ResultsDB view.
Marking "Nice to have soon" if we can do it before F17 Final, otherwise
it'll probably go into "Future tasks".
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/414>
AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org>
Automated QA project
11 years, 8 months
[AutoQA] #157: conflicts: requested arch not respected
by fedora-badges
#157: conflicts: requested arch not respected
--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
Reporter: kparal | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: tests | Version: 1.0
Keywords: |
--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
This is a bug in the potential_conflict.py script in tests/conflicts/.
Usage suggests using --arch options for specifying requested architecture
to be tested. But if you look at the attached log, the first and second
output match (that's correct), but the third doesn't match, even though it
should. Everything was tested on x86_64 machine.
Also from the usage line it is not clear whether --arch is related only to
particular yum repository selection (replacing $basearch keyword), or
whether it also relates to packages built for one architecture but being
in different repo (e.g. i686 packages are very often in x86_64 repo).
I have looked into the source code of the script and it seems that the
--arch option is not used at all, just printed out in the usage help??
Seth, you're listed as script author. Any comments on that? Thanks.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/157>
AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org>
Automated QA project
11 years, 8 months
[AutoQA] #421: depcheck: KeyError: 'strong_requires'
by fedora-badges
#421: depcheck: KeyError: 'strong_requires'
-----------------------+------------------------
Reporter: kparal | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: critical | Milestone: Hot issues
Component: tests | Keywords:
Blocked By: | Blocking:
-----------------------+------------------------
Since I updated our staging machines, a lot of these depcheck crashes
appeared:
{{{
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./depcheck", line 112, in <module>
profile=opts.profile)
File "/usr/share/autotest/tests/depcheck/depcheck_lib.py", line 394, in
depcheck_main
test_dir=temp_dir, accepted_dir=acc_dir)
File "/usr/share/autotest/tests/depcheck/depcheck_lib.py", line 352, in
do_depcheck
(r, problems) = y.resolveDeps()
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/yum/depsolve.py", line 855, in
resolveDeps
CheckDeps, checkinstalls, checkremoves, missing =
self._resolveRequires(errors)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/yum/depsolve.py", line 984, in
_resolveRequires
thisneeds = self._checkInstall(txmbr)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/yum/depsolve.py", line 1051, in
_checkInstall
oldreqs.extend(oldpo.returnPrco('strong_requires'))
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/yum/sqlitesack.py", line 385, in
returnPrco
if isinstance(self.prco[prcotype], tuple):
KeyError: 'strong_requires'
}}}
http://autoqa-
stg.fedoraproject.org/results/69597-autotest/virt26.qa/depcheck/results/f17
-updates-testing-.html
http://autoqa-
stg.fedoraproject.org/resultsdb/frontend/search?type=Testcase&terms=depcheck
I suspect the problem is in updated yum. I see these crashes only on
virt26 and virt27, which are F16 machines. It does not happen on qa06 and
qa07, which are F15 machines. Also it does not seem to manifest on virt05,
which is F16 machine but has an old yum.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/421>
AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org>
Automated QA project
11 years, 8 months
[AutoQA] #329: implement RPM checksum verification
by fedora-badges
#329: implement RPM checksum verification
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Reporter: kparal | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Finger Food
Component: core | Keywords:
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Currently this method is in autoqa.util module:
{{{
261 def valid_rpm(rpm_file):
262 '''Check that RPM file is valid.
263 Note: This currently only extracts RPM header and presumes the
file is
264 OK if that succeeds. Full RPM hashsum check would be nice to
have
265 implemented too (FIXME).
266 @param rpm_file RPM file path
267 @return True if file seems OK or False if there is some
problem (file
268 can't be read, RPM header is corrupt)
269 '''
...
}}}
We would like to have full RPM checksum verification, not just reading the
header and saying that it's OK. Find out how to do it and change the
method accordingly. It would be nice to have a method argument to enable
full checksum verification/fall back to original header verification,
because it can be performance intensive operation and it may not be
suitable for all our use cases).
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/329>
AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org>
Automated QA project
11 years, 9 months