3:22 p.m.
Hi,
We currently have a bug where the Online Accounts page in initial setup
is nonfunctional. [1] This doesn't violate any current release
criterion, but surely we don't want to release with a broken initial
setup experience. So let's add a new requirement for that. How about
something like:
"If an initial setup utility is run or intended to be run after the
first boot of the installed system, then it must start successfully and
each page or panel of the initial setup utility should withstand a
basic functionality test."
OK that's pretty basic, but it gets the point across. I think this can
be a final requirement, not necessarily important enough to be a beta
requirement. Bikeshed away!
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870476
9:15 p.m.
On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:22:26 PM MST Michael Catanzaro wrote:
Hi,
We currently have a bug where the Online Accounts page in initial setup
is nonfunctional. [1] This doesn't violate any current release
criterion, but surely we don't want to release with a broken initial
setup experience. So let's add a new requirement for that. How about
something like:
"If an initial setup utility is run or intended to be run after the
first boot of the installed system, then it must start successfully and
each page or panel of the initial setup utility should withstand a
basic functionality test."
OK that's pretty basic, but it gets the point across. I think this can
be a final requirement, not necessarily important enough to be a beta
requirement. Bikeshed away!
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870476
I would like to report a bug with the first boot experience:
Upon installing a new GNOME system, I'm accosted with a dialog asking me
questions about the system I just finished configuring in Anaconda. Is there
something in Anaconda I'm missing to disable this behavior, or do I have to
write my own kickstart to fix that?
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
11:09 p.m.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:16 PM John M. Harris Jr <johnmh(a)splentity.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:22:26 PM MST Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We currently have a bug where the Online Accounts page in initial setup
> is nonfunctional. [1] This doesn't violate any current release
> criterion, but surely we don't want to release with a broken initial
> setup experience. So let's add a new requirement for that. How about
> something like:
>
> "If an initial setup utility is run or intended to be run after the
> first boot of the installed system, then it must start successfully and
> each page or panel of the initial setup utility should withstand a
> basic functionality test."
>
> OK that's pretty basic, but it gets the point across. I think this can
> be a final requirement, not necessarily important enough to be a beta
> requirement. Bikeshed away!
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870476
I would like to report a bug with the first boot experience:
Upon installing a new GNOME system, I'm accosted with a dialog asking me
questions about the system I just finished configuring in Anaconda.
You're using net installer? The Live doesn't have user configuration
in the installer.
Is there
something in Anaconda I'm missing to disable this behavior, or do I have to
write my own kickstart to fix that?
Probably still works...
https://blog.centos.org/2013/12/preventing-gnome3s-initial-setup/
--
Chris Murphy
12:03 a.m.
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 22:09:57 -0600,
Chris Murphy <lists(a)colorremedies.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:16 PM John M. Harris Jr
<johnmh(a)splentity.com> wrote:
>
You're using net installer? The Live doesn't have user configuration
in the installer.
I did some live installs last week of rawhide and was able to create one
user account in the installer. You need to do either that or set up
root. Though you can do both. It might be different in F33.
1:12 a.m.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020, 11:11 PM Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 22:09:57 -0600,
Chris Murphy <lists(a)colorremedies.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:16 PM John M. Harris Jr <johnmh(a)splentity.com wrote:
> >You're using net installer?
The Live doesn't have user configuration
>in the installer.
I did some live installs last week of rawhide and was able to create one
user account in the installer. You need to do either that or set up
root. Though you can do both. It might be different in F33.
No user creation in Workstation Live, for a long time. First user is
created by GNOME Initial Setup. Root user is not enabled.
--
Chris Murphy
9:25 a.m.
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 19:15 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:22:26 PM MST Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We currently have a bug where the Online Accounts page in initial setup
> is nonfunctional. [1] This doesn't violate any current release
> criterion, but surely we don't want to release with a broken initial
> setup experience. So let's add a new requirement for that. How about
> something like:
>
> "If an initial setup utility is run or intended to be run after the
> first boot of the installed system, then it must start successfully and
> each page or panel of the initial setup utility should withstand a
> basic functionality test."
>
> OK that's pretty basic, but it gets the point across. I think this can
> be a final requirement, not necessarily important enough to be a beta
> requirement. Bikeshed away!
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870476
I would like to report a bug with the first boot experience:
Upon installing a new GNOME system, I'm accosted with a dialog asking me
questions about the system I just finished configuring in Anaconda. Is there
something in Anaconda I'm missing to disable this behavior, or do I have to
write my own kickstart to fix that?
You can use the "fistboot --disable"
command if you are installing via kickstart:
https://pykickstart.readthedocs.io/en/latest/kickstart-docs.html#firstboot
That should disable all post installation setup tools (Initial Setup, Gnome Initial
Setup).
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
1:41 a.m.
On Monday, September 7, 2020 7:25:49 AM MST Martin Kolman wrote:
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 19:15 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:22:26 PM MST Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > We currently have a bug where the Online Accounts page in initial setup
> >
> > is nonfunctional. [1] This doesn't violate any current release
> > criterion, but surely we don't want to release with a broken initial
> > setup experience. So let's add a new requirement for that. How about
> > something like:
> >
> > "If an initial setup utility is run or intended to be run after the
> > first boot of the installed system, then it must start successfully and
> >
> > each page or panel of the initial setup utility should withstand a
> > basic functionality test."
> >
> > OK that's pretty basic, but it gets the point across. I think this can
> > be a final requirement, not necessarily important enough to be a beta
> > requirement. Bikeshed away!
> >
> > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870476
>
>
> I would like to report a bug with the first boot experience:
>
> Upon installing a new GNOME system, I'm accosted with a dialog asking me
> questions about the system I just finished configuring in Anaconda. Is
> there something in Anaconda I'm missing to disable this behavior, or do
> I have to write my own kickstart to fix that?
You can use the "fistboot --disable" command if you are installing via
kickstart:
https://pykickstart.readthedocs.io/en/latest/kickstart-docs.html#firstboot
That should disable all post installation setup tools (Initial Setup, Gnome
Initial Setup).
I'm aware, I use kickstarts for the RHEL systems I deploy at work, but was
hoping there'd be some option in the GUI for the graphical variants. It gets
very annoying very quickly. ;)
Thank you.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
5:57 a.m.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 10:24 PM Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org>
wrote:
Hi,
We currently have a bug where the Online Accounts page in initial setup
is nonfunctional. [1] This doesn't violate any current release
criterion, but surely we don't want to release with a broken initial
setup experience. So let's add a new requirement for that. How about
something like:
"If an initial setup utility is run or intended to be run after the
first boot of the installed system, then it must start successfully and
each page or panel of the initial setup utility should withstand a
basic functionality test."
OK that's pretty basic, but it gets the point across. I think this can
be a final requirement, not necessarily important enough to be a beta
requirement. Bikeshed away!
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870476
Hey Michael,
all criteria proposals should definitely (also) go to the test list, adding
into CC.
Just to put everyone on the same page, we already have this Basic criterion:
"A system installed with a release-blocking desktop must boot to a log in
screen where it is possible to log in to a working desktop using a user
account created during installation or a 'first boot' utility."
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria#Expected_installed_...
That means that user creation is already guaranteed to be functional (but
might be rough around the edges). Of course that doesn't cover any other
actions available in the initial setup. Therefore your proposal (targeting
the Final milestone, which seems sensible) makes sense in this regard.
There are the screens in the initial setup:
1. Welcome
2. Privacy (Location Services, Automatic Problem Reporting)
3. Online Accounts (Google, Nextcloud, Microsoft, Facebook)
4. About You (Name, Username, Enterprise Login)
5. Password
6. Done
Since every screen contains just a couple of things, the "basic
functionality test" as you phrased it seems to cover essentially everything
that is present in there, with one arguable exception of the Enterprise
Login functionality. Do you have the same impression?
This will also cover the other initial setup screen that is visible for KDE
and other desktops (does it run also for ARM text installs? I'm not sure).
That one contains:
1. User Creation (Name, Username, Password, Make admin, Advanced)
And that was all (at least for my KDE install during which I didn't create
a regular user).
Overall I find the criterion reasonable and useful and I'm +1 to
incorporating it. Its current phrasing seems fine to me.
8:19 a.m.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:57 pm, Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Since every screen contains just a couple of things, the "basic
functionality test" as you phrased it seems to cover essentially
everything that is present in there, with one arguable exception of
the Enterprise Login functionality. Do you have the same impression?
Yes, it's meant to be slightly ambiguous so that QA can decide whether
borderline features are basic functionality. Google account is at the
top of the online accounts page and is an overwhelmingly popular
service, so if that doesn't work it's surely failed basic functionality
test. Enterprise accounts are a little buried. If only one type of
account is broken... well, that could go either way IMO.
Anyway, in this bug, every type of account that displays a web page is
broken.
This will also cover the other initial setup screen that is visible
for KDE and other desktops (does it run also for ARM text installs?
I'm not sure).
That one contains:
1. User Creation (Name, Username, Password, Make admin, Advanced)
And that was all (at least for my KDE install during which I didn't
create a regular user).
Yes, of course it should cover KDE as well.
Michael
P.S. I'm not going to attempt to CC test@ since it will just reject my
mails, since I'm not a member of the list. Hopefully your mail to there
will suffice.
12:12 p.m.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:57 pm, Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Overall I find the criterion reasonable and useful and I'm +1 to
incorporating it. Its current phrasing seems fine to me.
So how does the process of adding the new criterion work? I guess we
should leave the weekend for additional comment, in case anybody wants
to suggest improvements, but it'd be nice to get this incorporated into
the release criteria and repropose the gnome-initial-setup bug.
1:16 p.m.
On Fri, 2020-09-04 at 12:12 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:57 pm, Kamil Paral
<kparal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Overall I find the criterion reasonable and useful and I'm +1 to
> incorporating it. Its current phrasing seems fine to me.
So how does the process of adding the new criterion work? I guess we
should leave the weekend for additional comment, in case anybody wants
to suggest improvements, but it'd be nice to get this incorporated into
the release criteria and repropose the gnome-initial-setup bug.
To be honest it's something we've never had the roundtuits to write up
in a nice clean policy. The convention is basically: once a draft has
been up for a while (say, a week or two, depending on urgency) without
significant objections, you just go ahead and add it to the wiki. i.e.
it's a fuzzy consensus system. :)
I do keep meaning to write it up a bit more formally, but never get
enough round tuits...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
1:50 p.m.
On Fri, 2020-09-04 at 11:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2020-09-04 at 12:12 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:57 pm, Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > Overall I find the criterion reasonable and useful and I'm +1 to
> > incorporating it. Its current phrasing seems fine to me.
>
> So how does the process of adding the new criterion work? I guess we
> should leave the weekend for additional comment, in case anybody wants
> to suggest improvements, but it'd be nice to get this incorporated into
> the release criteria and repropose the gnome-initial-setup bug.
To be honest it's something we've never had the roundtuits to write up
in a nice clean policy. The convention is basically: once a draft has
been up for a while (say, a week or two, depending on urgency) without
significant objections, you just go ahead and add it to the wiki. i.e.
it's a fuzzy consensus system. :)
Oh, sorry, bit more detail - you should also send a mailing list reply
to say "I reckon this is ready to go and no-one objected, so I'm adding
it to the wiki now", and have the wiki edit message link to the mailing
list thread. Just so things can easily be tracked back. If it's not too
much trouble, please also add a "References" footnote to the criterion
following the pattern used by other criteria - at least linking to the
mailing list discussion with some dates, and with a "Test case:" entry,
which can point to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_base_initial_setup , as that
does actually already say "Other functions of the initial setup utility
should complete without errors, crashes or freezes, and should achieve
the results they claim".
Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
3:23 a.m.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 8:17 PM Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
On Fri, 2020-09-04 at 12:12 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:57 pm, Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > Overall I find the criterion reasonable and useful and I'm +1 to
> > incorporating it. Its current phrasing seems fine to me.
>
> So how does the process of adding the new criterion work? I guess we
> should leave the weekend for additional comment, in case anybody wants
> to suggest improvements, but it'd be nice to get this incorporated into
> the release criteria and repropose the gnome-initial-setup bug.
To be honest it's something we've never had the roundtuits to write up
in a nice clean policy. The convention is basically: once a draft has
been up for a while (say, a week or two, depending on urgency) without
significant objections, you just go ahead and add it to the wiki. i.e.
it's a fuzzy consensus system. :)
Yes, but I find it concerning that I was the only one who provided feedback
to this proposal. It might have been partially caused by the fact that it
wasn't sent to the test list. I urge everyone who has some opinion on this
to provide it, at least in the form of a thumbs up. Thanks.
1:04 p.m.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 2:24 AM Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 8:17 PM Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-09-04 at 12:12 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:57 pm, Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Overall I find the criterion reasonable and useful and I'm +1 to
> > > incorporating it. Its current phrasing seems fine to me.
> >
> > So how does the process of adding the new criterion work? I guess we
> > should leave the weekend for additional comment, in case anybody wants
> > to suggest improvements, but it'd be nice to get this incorporated into
> > the release criteria and repropose the gnome-initial-setup bug.
>
> To be honest it's something we've never had the roundtuits to write up
> in a nice clean policy. The convention is basically: once a draft has
> been up for a while (say, a week or two, depending on urgency) without
> significant objections, you just go ahead and add it to the wiki. i.e.
> it's a fuzzy consensus system. :)
Yes, but I find it concerning that I was the only one who provided feedback to this
proposal. It might have been partially caused by the fact that it wasn't sent to the
test list. I urge everyone who has some opinion on this to provide it, at least in the
form of a thumbs up. Thanks.
:thumbsup:
--
Chris Murphy
9:29 a.m.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 10:24 PM Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org>
wrote:
Hi,
We currently have a bug where the Online Accounts page in initial setup
is nonfunctional. [1] This doesn't violate any current release
criterion, but surely we don't want to release with a broken initial
setup experience. So let's add a new requirement for that. How about
something like:
"If an initial setup utility is run or intended to be run after the
first boot of the installed system, then it must start successfully and
each page or panel of the initial setup utility should withstand a
basic functionality test."
OK that's pretty basic, but it gets the point across. I think this can
be a final requirement, not necessarily important enough to be a beta
requirement. Bikeshed away!
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870476
This criterion is now live:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Final_Release_Criteria#First_boo...
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=QA%3ATestcase_base_initial_se...
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ABase_test_matrix&a...
Thanks everyone involved.
4:55 p.m.
hi,
i'm no dev but
i'm blind would functional include being accessible to orca the screen
reader?
after all to a blind person like me having an accessible setup
experience is a requirement?
or after I install the system, I would be in the dark?
Majid
On 15/09/2020 15:29, Kamil Paral wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 10:24 PM Michael Catanzaro
<mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org <mailto:mcatanzaro@gnome.org>> wrote:
Hi,
We currently have a bug where the Online Accounts page in initial
setup
is nonfunctional. [1] This doesn't violate any current release
criterion, but surely we don't want to release with a broken initial
setup experience. So let's add a new requirement for that. How about
something like:
"If an initial setup utility is run or intended to be run after the
first boot of the installed system, then it must start
successfully and
each page or panel of the initial setup utility should withstand a
basic functionality test."
OK that's pretty basic, but it gets the point across. I think this
can
be a final requirement, not necessarily important enough to be a beta
requirement. Bikeshed away!
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870476
This criterion is now live:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Final_Release_Criteria#First_boo...
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=QA%3ATestcase_base_initial_se...
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ABase_test_matrix&a...
Thanks everyone involved.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
7:17 p.m.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:55 pm, majid hussain <mhussaincov93(a)gmx.com>
wrote:
hi,
i'm no dev but
i'm blind would functional include being accessible to orca the
screen reader?
after all to a blind person like me having an accessible setup
experience is a requirement?
or after I install the system, I would be in the dark?
Majid
I think it makes sense to have a criterion to ensure, at minimum, that
the screen reader is working throughout the initial setup process, yes.
orca was completely broken in F33 until last week [1] and we only
noticed by coincidence, since it doesn't get tested much.
Unfortunately right now the login screen is not accessible (regression,
[2]). gnome-initial-setup is pretty hard to use with just a screen
reader. And anaconda doesn't seem to be accessible at all (at least, I
don't know how to get orca to read anything in anaconda). So things
would probably need to first be in better shape before we can actually
start enforcing a blocker criterion to ensure it stays working....
Michael
[1] https://github.com/brailcom/speechd/issues/402
[2] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/issues/3157
8:41 p.m.
On Wed, 2020-09-16 at 19:17 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:55 pm, majid hussain
<mhussaincov93(a)gmx.com>
wrote:
> hi,
>
> i'm no dev but
>
> i'm blind would functional include being accessible to orca the
> screen reader?
>
> after all to a blind person like me having an accessible setup
> experience is a requirement?
>
> or after I install the system, I would be in the dark?
>
> Majid
>
I think it makes sense to have a criterion to ensure, at minimum, that
the screen reader is working throughout the initial setup process, yes.
orca was completely broken in F33 until last week [1] and we only
noticed by coincidence, since it doesn't get tested much.
Unfortunately right now the login screen is not accessible (regression,
[2]). gnome-initial-setup is pretty hard to use with just a screen
reader. And anaconda doesn't seem to be accessible at all (at least, I
don't know how to get orca to read anything in anaconda). So things
would probably need to first be in better shape before we can actually
start enforcing a blocker criterion to ensure it stays working....
Right, I pretty much agree with Michael.
The way I'd want it to work in the criteria, ideally, is we'd say
something like "all desktop requirements must be met for blind users
with assistive technology, e.g. screen reading" - i.e. rather than this
being a criterion exactly, we'd expect sufficient a11y support to be in
place that *all* the desktop criteria would be met for blind users. But
as Michael says, it sounds like we haven't really got things in good
enough shape yet that we'd be able to enforce such a requirement right
now, so that should be fixed first.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
1310
days inactive
1326
days old
18 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Adam Williamson -
Bruno Wolff III -
Chris Murphy -
John M. Harris Jr -
Kamil Paral -
majid hussain -
Martin Kolman -
Michael Catanzaro