#330: upgradepath: improve behavior when pushing update to multiple releases -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: kparal | Owner: kparal Type: enhancement | Status: assigned Priority: major | Milestone: 0.6.0 Component: tests | Resolution: Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Changes (by jlaska):
* cc: sgallagh (added)
Comment:
On #fedora-devel, sgallagh requested this very feature for the next autoqa release. He was happy to see the change was already in development. I directed sgallagh to the mock-up kparal generated (http://kparal.fedorapeople.org/autoqa/t330.html). I'm passing along sgallagh's feedback into this ticket.
The only suggested sgallagh had was to change the individual test result from FAIL to INFO (or WARN). The rationale being that FAIL implies there is something the maintainer can do to resolve the problem. In the case of pushing updates, the only course of action a maintainer has is to ensure they push the updates at the same time (so that the nightly repos are updated at the same time).
I've included the chat log below. {{{ 07:36 sgallagh: jlaska: I've got an autoqa bug for you :) 07:37 sgallagh: jlaska: Disregard that. I misread. 07:48 jlaska: sgallagh: okay 07:48 sgallagh: jlaska: One enhancement request, though :) 07:48 jlaska: sgallagh: let's have it! 07:48 sgallagh: jlaska: Autoqa should also check updates-testing-pending for Fedora N+1 07:49 jlaska: this is for the upgradepath test? 07:49 sgallagh: jlaska: Because if I push sssd-1.5.11-2.fc15 and then immediately push sssd-1.5.11-2.fc14 as well, autoqa complains that sssd-1.5.11-2. fc14 breaks upgrades 07:49 jlaska: yeah 07:49 sgallagh: Even though they're both pending and will hit stable in the same push 07:50 jlaska: iirc, a fix for that will be landing in the next version ... checking ... 07:50 --> mmorsi_ [~mmorsi@cpe-24-58-175-240.twcny.res.rr.com] has joined #fedora-devel 07:51 jlaska: sgallagh: https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/330 I believe kparal may be working on that already 07:51 jlaska: here's a sample of how that will look ... http://kparal.fedorapeople.org/autoqa/t330.html 07:52 sgallagh: Looks good to me :) Glad you guys are on top of this 07:52 jlaska: sgallagh: if you have other suggestions for how to present/visualize the result for this ... don't hesitate to drop a line in the ticket (or autoqa-devel@fedorahosted.org) 07:55 sgallagh: WIll do 07:55 sgallagh: jlaska: I'd suggest that this shouldn't be FAIl but INFO, though 07:56 sgallagh: Because if the package is in updates-pending, then it's pretty much guaranteed to be pushed at the same time. 07:56 jlaska: I think the problem we've had is it wasn't guarrunteed (or at least wasn't 100%) 07:57 sgallagh: jlaska: Well, it's vulnerable to interrupted pushes I guess 07:57 jlaska: and due to any number of repo/mirror/sync issues, one createrepo could fail, while the other releases could be fine 07:57 jlaska: yeah 07:57 sgallagh: But since there's nothing the maintainer can do at that point, I think it's disingenuous to mark it as a failure 07:57 jlaska: okay 07:57 sgallagh: Because that to me says "You need to fix this!" 07:57 jlaska: so something like WARN || INFO would be better? 07:57 jlaska: ah 07:58 jlaska: I guess the only control a maintainer has at that point is to ensure they push them all at the same time? 07:58 sgallagh: jlaska: Well, I think if I push them in the correct order, (f15, then f14) I've already done everything I'm equipped to 07:59 sgallagh: As a maintainer, I can't have any control after that as to whether they actually hit the repos at the same time. 07:59 sgallagh: So there's always going to be a slight risk that there's a window of bad upgrade. 08:00 jlaska: right 08:00 sgallagh: But I don't think it's fair to require that f14 pushes wait until f15 is actually IN stable 08:00 jlaska: yeah, that's out of autoqa's domain anyway 08:00 jlaska: more policy I mean 08:01 sgallagh: jlaska: Right, but I think that's a policy no one would be willing to follow anyway 08:01 sgallagh: And it wouldn't work for security updates, etc. very well 08:01 jlaska: it'd sure make a lot of folks cranky :) 08:01 jlaska: sgallagh: I'll add your feedback to the autoqa ticket where kparal is tracking this change ... and cc you in case I misstate anything 08:02 jlaska: sound good? 08:02 sgallagh: Sure }}}