Re: Please help me test Workstation 28 -> 29 upgrade

On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 00:13 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hi, > > could somebody please test upgrade from fully upgraded Workstation 28 to > 29? I have a suspicion that it will be blocked by [0], yet I lack disk > space to try it. > > Thanks. > > [0] https://bugzilla

Please help me test Workstation 28 -> 29 upgrade

Hi, could somebody please test upgrade from fully upgraded Workstation 28 to 29? I have a suspicion that it will be blocked by [0], yet I lack disk space to try it. Thanks. [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1605613 -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

Re: How do I run the standard test interface tests with docker?

On 23.4.2018 20:06, Adam Williamson wrote: I did ask in #fedora-ci on IRC if anyone could answer the question for you, sorry I didn't check to see if anyone had followed up. It's not *wrong* exactly, but the folks here are not mostly the folks responsible for the 'Fedora CI' stuff, this list is

Re: How do I run the standard test interface tests with docker?

On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 17:07 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 17.4.2018 22:45, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > I'm trying to follow the following guide: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CI/Tests#Wrapping > > > > ... > > > > What piece am I missing? > > Is this a wrong place ask? I did ask in

Re: How do I run the standard test interface tests with docker?

On 21.4.2018 18:13, Matthew Miller wrote: On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 05:07:16PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: I'm trying to follow the following guide: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CI/Tests#Wrapping What piece am I missing? Is this a wrong place ask? Maybe try c...@lists.fedoraproject.org?

Re: How do I run the standard test interface tests with docker?

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 05:07:16PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >I'm trying to follow the following guide: > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CI/Tests#Wrapping > >What piece am I missing? > Is this a wrong place ask? Maybe try c...@lists.fedoraproject.org? -- Matthew Miller

How do I run the standard test interface tests with docker?

I'm trying to follow the following guide: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CI/Tests#Wrapping Let's say I've done the following: $ fedpkgclone gzip $ cd gzip/tests/ Now I want to run the tests in Docker. The guide says: > Try running this example test against an Atomic Host or Docker Contai

openQA test failures due to typing errors

Hi folks! Another note for anyone paying attention to openQA test results. Since 2017-08-09 there's been kind of a flood of failures caused by 'typing errors' - that is, when the test runner is trying to type a string into the test VM and it doesn't get through correctly (usually due to one

Re: New automated test coverage: openQA tests of critical path updates

e tests) certainly don't. I've got a PR in progress upstream to allow us to sort these differently, and that should get changed soon. About half way through last week I implemented a change which means any failed test is automatically retried; this cut down quite a lot on false failures caused

Re: New automated test coverage: openQA tests of critical path updates

These race conditions > > occur surprisingly often once you start executing hundreds/thousands > > tasks a day. > > > > But if this is easier done in the scheduler, I think that's totally fine. > > During test execution, we can only really type stuff into the console.

Re: New automated test coverage: openQA tests of critical path updates

ingly often once you start executing hundreds/thousands > tasks a day. > > But if this is easier done in the scheduler, I think that's totally fine. During test execution, we can only really type stuff into the console. We try to keep the amount of typing-into-consoles we do to a minimu

Re: New automated test coverage: openQA tests of critical path updates

e 100% reliable, because the job actually goes and does the download > somewhere in between those two times. This problem is not exclusive to openqa, it affects all tasks that test bodhi updates and download the included rpms (there's always a race condition window). For openqa, I see two options

Re: New automated test coverage: openQA tests of critical path updates

2017-03-01 18:04 GMT+01:00 Adam Williamson : > I'm not so sure it's really necessary, and doing it is actually tricky > for openQA. Only the openQA job itself knows what packages it actually > tested, and it doesn't have an easy way to get the associated > timestamp.

Re: New automated test coverage: openQA tests of critical path updates

On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 11:18 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote: > So my first thought was to recommend you to also publish just > type=koji_build results and finish this transition. But then I > realized that's wrong. OpenQA operates completely different than the > aforementioned tasks do. We operate on

Re: New automated test coverage: openQA tests of critical path updates

> Hi folks! > > I am currently rolling out some changes to the Fedora openQA deployment > which enable a new testing workflow. From now on, a subset of openQA > tests should be run automatically on every critpath update, both on > initial submission and on any edit of the update. > > For the

Re: making test suites work the same way

. So, I went forward with this: 1. add tox.ini to projects to allow simple test suite execution with `pytest` (non-controversial) 2. configure tox.ini to print out test coverage (non-controversial) 3. remove --system-site-packages from all places (readme, makefile) for those projects, that

Re: making test suites work the same way

hich means people get different results on > different setups. That's exactly what I'm trying to eliminate (or at least > reduce). E.g. https://phab.qa.fedoraproject.org/D where I can run the > test suite from makefile and you can't, and it's quite difficult to figure > out wh

Re: Please Test Staging Phabricator

- Original Message - > From: "Tim Flink" <tfl...@redhat.com> > To: qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 4:56:11 PM > Subject: Re: Please Test Staging Phabricator > > On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 04:09:24 -0500 (EST) >

Re: Please Test Staging Phabricator

> > For a start Ipsilon tells me it's some entirely foreign third-party > > domain - 'monikra.me' - that wants access to all my personal > > information, which is a bit unsettling. I went ahead and let it have > > it (For Science!) and got: > > FWIW, monikra.me is a service that puiterwijk made

Re: Please Test Staging Phabricator

On Wed, 07 Dec 2016 08:24:46 -0800 Adam Williamson wrote: > For a start Ipsilon tells me it's some entirely foreign third-party > domain - 'monikra.me' - that wants access to all my personal > information, which is a bit unsettling. I went ahead and let it have > it

Re: Please Test Staging Phabricator

so that there's no account > fiddling needed to use the new auth system. Things are working in my > testing but I'd like to see more people test out the new auth method > before deploying all of this to production. > > If you have the time, please try logging in to > > h

Please Test Staging Phabricator

are working in my testing but I'd like to see more people test out the new auth method before deploying all of this to production. If you have the time, please try logging in to https://phab.qa.stg.fedoraproject.org/ I've seen some errors from ipsilon about "Transaction expired, or co

Re: [Fedora QA] #494: F25 Atomic Test Day

#494: F25 Atomic Test Day --+--- Reporter: jasonbrooks | Owner: tflink Type: task | Status: new Priority: major| Milestone: Fedora 25 Component: Test Day |Version: Resolution

[Fedora QA] #494: F25 Atomic Test Day

#494: F25 Atomic Test Day --+ Reporter: jasonbrooks | Owner: tflink Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 25 Component: Blocker bug

test

please ignore ___ qa-devel mailing list -- qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to qa-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

libtaskotron: new mock needed to run the test suite

Please note I've bumped the requirements for mock in libtaskotron and removed some workarounds we had for bugs in the older version. Please make sure to run $ git pull $ pip install -r requirements.txt otherwise the test suite might not pass for you the next time you run it and the errors

Re: [Fedora QA] #480: Fedora 24 Translation (L10n) Test Day

#480: Fedora 24 Translation (L10n) Test Day ---+ Reporter: anipeter | Owner: tflink Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 23 Component: Test Day |Version: Resolution

[Fedora QA] #480: Fedora 24 Translation (L10n) Test Day

#480: Fedora 24 Translation (L10n) Test Day --+ Reporter: anipeter | Owner: tflink Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 23

pungi4 example / test runs

Hi, folks. I know this is interesting to me, so it may be to you. Pungi4 test / example composes can be found here: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/rawhide/ so you can see the various new metadata it produces. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter

[Fedora QA] #477: Proposed Test Day - NetworkManager (2015-08-20)

#477: Proposed Test Day - NetworkManager (2015-08-20) + Reporter: lkundrak| Owner: jskladan Type: task| Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 23

Re: [Fedora QA] #477: Proposed Test Day - NetworkManager (2015-08-20)

#477: Proposed Test Day - NetworkManager (2015-08-20) -+--- Reporter: lkundrak| Owner: jskladan Type: task| Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 23

[Fedora QA] #473: Fedora 23 Translation (L10n) Test Day

#473: Fedora 23 Translation (L10n) Test Day --+ Reporter: anipeter | Owner: tflink Type: defect| Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 23

Re: [Fedora QA] #473: Fedora 23 Translation (L10n) Test Day

#473: Fedora 23 Translation (L10n) Test Day ---+--- Reporter: anipeter | Owner: tflink Type: defect| Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 23 Component: Test Day |Version: Resolution

Re: [Fedora QA] #468: Fedora 22 Translation (L10n) Test Day

#468: Fedora 22 Translation (L10n) Test Day ---+--- Reporter: anipeter | Owner: pschindl Type: defect| Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 22 Component: Test Day |Version: Resolution

Re: [Fedora QA] #468: Fedora 22 Translation (L10n) Test Day

#468: Fedora 22 Translation (L10n) Test Day ---+--- Reporter: anipeter | Owner: pschindl Type: defect| Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 22 Component: Test Day |Version: Resolution

Re: [Fedora QA] #468: Fedora 22 Translation (L10n) Test Day

#468: Fedora 22 Translation (L10n) Test Day ---+--- Reporter: anipeter | Owner: tflink Type: defect| Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 22 Component: Test Day |Version: Resolution

Re: [Fedora QA] #443: Better format for test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) requests

#443: Better format for test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) requests -+- Reporter: jreznik | Owner: adamwill Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major

Re: [Fedora QA] #452: Proposed Test Day - Jenkins

#452: Proposed Test Day - Jenkins ---+--- Reporter: msrb | Owner: pschindl Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 21 Component: Test Day |Version: Resolution:| Keywords

Re: [Fedora QA] #452: Proposed Test Day - Jenkins

#452: Proposed Test Day - Jenkins ---+--- Reporter: msrb | Owner: pschindl Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 21 Component: Test Day |Version: Resolution:| Keywords

[Fedora QA] #452: Proposed Test Day - Jenkins

#452: Proposed Test Day - Jenkins --+-- Reporter: msrb | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Test Day | Version: Keywords:| Blocked By: Blocking

Re: [Fedora QA] #443: Better format for test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) requests

#443: Better format for test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) requests -+--- Reporter: jreznik | Owner: adamwill Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major

Re: test vs check naming consistency

motivation is to give more clarity to emails in this mailing list, because the word 'test' is really overloaded with meaning in our field of work. I think that if we start calling taskotron-runnable tasks 'checks', and use 'tests' only for unit tests etc, it will be easier for all of us to understand

Re: test vs check naming consistency

to the developers to test it that way). Cheers, Nick. - -- Nick Coghlan Red Hat Hosted Shared Services Software Engineering Development, Brisbane Testing Solutions Team Lead Beaker Development Lead (http://beaker-project.org/) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG

Re: [Fedora QA] #443: Better format for test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) requests

#443: Better format for test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) requests -+--- Reporter: jreznik | Owner: adamwill Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major

test vs check naming consistency

' 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

Re: [AutoQA] #197: New test: See also validity in man pages

#197: New test: See also validity in man pages + Reporter: kparal | Owner: Type: task| Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Future test cases Component: tests | Resolution: wontfix Keywords

Re: [AutoQA] #274: systemd unit files test

#274: systemd unit files test + Reporter: kparal | Owner: Type: task| Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Future test cases Component: tests | Resolution: wontfix Keywords: | Blocked

Re: [AutoQA] #118: New test proposal: Python debugability

#118: New test proposal: Python debugability + Reporter: kparal | Owner: Type: task| Status: closed Priority: minor | Milestone: Future test cases Component: tests | Resolution: wontfix Keywords

Re: [AutoQA] #263: Run kvm-autotest test suite for new virt* koji builds

#263: Run kvm-autotest test suite for new virt* koji builds + Reporter: jlaska | Owner: Type: task| Status: closed Priority: minor | Milestone: Future test cases Component: tests | Resolution: wontfix

Re: [Fedora QA] #432: Test day results app should be more navigable: create an event, export results, view all events

#432: Test day results app should be more navigable: create an event, export results, view all events -+-- Reporter: adamwill| Owner: jskladan Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major