qa-devel February 2014

qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

7 participants
16 discussions

[Fedora QA] #436: SSH access to systems in Beaker lab
by fedora-badges 20 Apr '16

20 Apr '16

#436: SSH access to systems in Beaker lab --------------------------------------+--------------------- Reporter: atodorov | Owner: tflink Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Blocker bug tracker page | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | --------------------------------------+--------------------- = bug description = Currently systems in Beaker lab can be accessed only through bastion.fp.o which is not as convenient as direct SSH into the system. There's also the question whether or not to open the systems directly to the Internet. This needs to be discussed with infra. Filing here so it doesn't get lost. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/436> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 4

[Fedora QA] #443: Better format for test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) requests
by fedora-badges 30 Jan '15

30 Jan '15

#443: Better format for test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) requests ----------------------------------------+------------------------ Reporter: jreznik | Owner: Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 21 Component: Blocker/NTH review process | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ----------------------------------------+------------------------ = problem = With Dennis (in CC), we discussed how to make release process, with Fedora.next in mind, more transparent and bullet proof. One issue is that releng request can become pretty messy, with full text included and sometimes it leads to errors (omission of packages in compose etc). = enhancement recommendation = One possibility is to visibly separate full text description (with bug numbers, reasons - it's good to have history) and the list of exact nvrs (maybe in code block?), try to avoid "qt bundle" etc. so it's easier to pick up the right list (for blockers, FEs + exceptional tools requests). Another thing is better coordination between requester/releng - to mark when/which list was picked up etc, in similar way how Go/No-Go decision is stated in the ticket. Now I'll let more space to Dennis, maybe example of how the request should look like to make it easy to parse would help. Long term (and preferred) solution would be to have automation in place, Blocker app talking to releng interface, compose database, web dashboard etc... -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/443> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 3

[Fedora QA] #437: Need to import daily Fedora snapshots into Beaker
by fedora-badges 30 Jan '15

30 Jan '15

#437: Need to import daily Fedora snapshots into Beaker --------------------------------------+--------------------- Reporter: atodorov | Owner: tflink Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Blocker bug tracker page | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | --------------------------------------+--------------------- = bug description = In order to perform any meaningfull testing Beaker needs to import more recent Fedora trees. It could be daily(nightly) snapshots or less often depending on available resources. The tree directory structure needs to be a copy/snapshot of the current state at the time of import. The reason is b/c devel trees utilize one URL but the contents under this URL are updated in a rolling fashion. We need tree URLs where content is not changing in order to produce consistent test results. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/437> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 1

[Fedora QA] #433: blocker proposal form forgets everything after login timeout
by fedora-badges 20 Jan '15

20 Jan '15

#433: blocker proposal form forgets everything after login timeout --------------------------------------+--------------------- Reporter: kvolny | Owner: tflink Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Blocker bug tracker page | Version: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | --------------------------------------+--------------------- = bug description = I was trying to propose a F20 blocker. I needed to gather information from multiple bugs, so it took me longer to write the justification. After finishing and submitting that, I was presented with a login screen. After logging in again, I was redirected to the proposal form again, but it was completely empty, all the text that took me so long to write was gone. (Okay, I'm a smart guy and I had it in clipboard for such case, but if I had forgotten ... booh.) = bug analysis = Seems the login code doesn't care about other variables in the http request ... = fix recommendation = 1) If there is such a short login timeout, the user should be warned about it (e.g. countdown timer on the page) and the page should allow refresh without submitting the data. 2) Once the login expires, the submitted data should be caried over all the redirects back to the submission form. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/433> Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa> Fedora Quality Assurance

1 2

QA Infrastructure and Ansible
by Tim Flink 19 Mar '14

19 Mar '14

I don't know if we've talked about it much on list but most of the QA stuff (autoqa, blockerbugs-dev, taskotron, qadevel) is managed with a set of ansible playbooks: https://bitbucket.org/fedoraqa/ansible-playbooks As we've been adding stuff, these playbooks have been getting more and more unwieldy and they aren't quite written in the same style as the Fedora infra playbooks are. I'm going to start some major refactoring of the playbooks this week to farther a couple of goals: 1. Move to a central execution point for the production, staging and non-local dev deployments 2. Migrate to a style more similar to how infra does things so that the eventual migration isn't quite so painful 3. Make the playbooks, as a whole, more manageable and easier to understand so that more folks can learn them, help with sysadmin tasks and decrease the bus factor (which is currently 1 in a couple of areas) I don't think that anyone else is working on the playbooks, but I wanted to send out a heads up in case there is work that I don't know about. If you're using the playbooks for a local taskotron deployment, that'll continue to work for the most part. I'll be pushing changes to a non-master branch at first and you'll probably need to adapt some of your configuration but I'm hoping that the changes won't be huge. Tim

1 1

test vs check naming consistency
by Kamil Paral 25 Feb '14

25 Feb '14

I've noticed that we started to use the word 'check' for naming the scripts performing package-level or system-level checks/tests. I'd like to be consistent in our code and in our documentation, so that our users are not confused. Can somebody (probably Tim) clarify what should we call a 'check' and what should we call a 'test'? Do I understand correctly that 'checks' are anything provided by the users (the scripts), and 'tests/testing' will be used mainly for denoting unit/functional tests? At the moment, I'm working on porting autoqa.test.TestDetail class into Taskotron. When following these directions, I guess it should be called libtaskotron.check.CheckDetail then?

3 3

Review Request 37: Fix sequences in alembic
by Martin Krizek 21 Feb '14

21 Feb '14

1 4

Review Request 64: Do not display obsolete and deleted updates
by Martin Krizek 21 Feb '14

21 Feb '14

----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/64/ ----------------------------------------------------------- Review request for blockerbugs. Repository: blockerbugs Description ------- This will not display updates that are obsolete or irrelevant. After fetching updates from bodhi, the clean_updates method will set status of updates that are in database and not in the fetched updates (are not relevant anymore) to 'deleted'. There seems to be no way to know whether an update in db is still present in bodhi or not. So we mark every update in db as 'deleted' that is not currently an update that fixes a blocker bug. The question is whether we want to mark these updates as 'deleted' and create status that does not exist in bodhi or mark them in other way. If a situation where a 'deleted' update is used again as a fix of a blocker bug occurs, its status is set back to 'testing' or 'stable' on the next update sync. Any suggestions about improving or changing the approach? Diffs ----- testing/testfunc_update_sync.py 48dfb500469b8f237020b5d0845ae60a4e1fb776 blockerbugs/util/update_sync.py 47dbc9fa17ed3b751417b4ab822c257fa5423f4b blockerbugs/controllers/main.py 5455e1aa2bbf6edc551223ee6fccb9c6236f0eb8 blockerbugs/__init__.py 3525501c382f21339dab0e18e973141ad29073e3 Diff: http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/64/diff/ Testing ------- Unit test attached in the patch. Some testing done on my dev machine as well. Thanks, Martin Krizek

1 4

Review Request 62: Fix needinfo field length
by Martin Krizek 21 Feb '14

21 Feb '14

1 1

Review Request 61: Rename line.png to line-bottom.png
by Martin Krizek 21 Feb '14

21 Feb '14

1 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

qa-devel February 2014