Re: [Xen-devel] Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

[Josef Skladanka]

+1

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:53 PM Sumantro Mukherjee 
wrote:

> Yup +1 from my side too. Xen is hardly tested since a lot of time.
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:07 PM Geoffrey Marr  wrote:
>
>> Since F24, I haven't seen or heard of anyone who uses Xen over KVM
>> anywhere other than this thread... I'm +1 for making this test an
>> "Optional" one.
>>
>> Geoff Marr
>> IRC: coremodule
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:33 AM Adam Williamson <
>> adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 13:19 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> > On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:59 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> > > > > I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and tested
>>> regularly
>>> > > > - not *only* on the final release candidate, right before we sign
>>> off
>>> > > > on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout the
>>> release
>>> > > > cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".
>>> > >
>>> > > Right, which is why I am happy that you have pointed me to the right
>>> > > place so I can be up-to-date.
>>> >
>>> > Great, thanks. So let's leave it as it is for now, but we'll keep an
>>> > eye on this during F27 cycle. If we get to, say, Beta and there are no
>>> > results for the test, that's gonna be a problem. Thanks!
>>>
>>> So, for Fedora 30, this was not tested throughout the whole cycle. I
>>> think we can consider the proposal to remove the criterion active
>>> again.
>>> --
>>> Adam Williamson
>>> Fedora QA Community Monkey
>>> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
>>> http://www.happyassassin.net
>>> ___
>>> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>>> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>>> List Archives:
>>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>>
>> ___
>> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>> List Archives:
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>
>
>
> --
> //sumantro
> Fedora QE
> TRIED AND PERSONALLY TESTED, ERGO TRUSTED 
> ___
> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results

[Josef Skladanka]

Hi Rolf!

I was not around teh internetz over the weekend, but I took the liberty of 
creating the page for your testday just now.
I also put the the results already tracked in the wiki into the app, and added 
a reference to the tool to the wiki testday.

Regards, Joza

- Original Message -
> From: "Rolf Fokkens" 
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases" 
> 
> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 3:56:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Tomorrow (sunday) there's an SSD cache Test day. I do like not using the
> wiki for testresults, but is this tool online available to be used for
> tomorrow's test day?
> 
> Rolf
> 
> 
> On 10/11/2013 06:53 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > On 10/11/2013 04:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> Well, 'we' didn't, really. Josef just thought it would be a useful thing
> >> to have, so he wrote it, and someone running a test day wound up using
> >> it. There was no strategic meeting or grand conspiracy or plan or
> >> something. This is how stuff happens in tech, usually: stuff gets done
> >> because people just...do it.
> >
> > Not really but OK
> >
> >>   Now we have seen test days where we used
> >> the wiki to track results and test days where we used josef's little
> >> tool to track results, and people seem to like the tool, so maybe now
> >> we'll make it more clear to people running test days that they have the
> >> option of using the tool to track the results. That's really the sum
> >> total of what's going on.
> >
> > Anything beats the wiki really so if it's in ready enough shape we
> > should just move to that one instead.
> >
> > JBG
> 
> --
> test mailing list
> test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results

[Josef Skladanka]

- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" 
> To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 3:42:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
> 
> Hmm when was it decided that we should write our own app to replace the
> wiki instead of trying to (re)use something other distribution are using?
> 
> JBG

Hi, Viking-Ice!

this app is/was a "resultsdb proof of concept" that actually had a practical 
use. If you are willing to investigate other (existing) tools, I'll be glad to 
read your research. In the mean time, I think it's OK to offer this alternative 
(since it also has the wiki-syntax export, so we're not losing any results)...

J.
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results

[Josef Skladanka]

Hi,

first of all - thanks for the kind words! 

I mailed the testday-owners during F19, I honestly forgot to promote it now (my 
bad, I guess we could add it to some 'HOW TO' for testdays, if it exists).

The app still has it's limits (and I have not yet found the time to work on it 
since F19), but it can IMHO acomodate most of the tesdays'. The biggest "meh" 
issue there is right now is the inability to dynamically add more 'identifying 
columns' (now the combination of username+hardware says which 'result' comes to 
which line in the matrix), but I believe that being able to rename it via 
metadata (to e.g. 'KVM version') can be a simple solution to the problem, and 
it's weird that I have not thought of that sooner :)

I'll ping the people responsible for the (at the moment) sheduled testdays, and 
do my best to work with them on using the app.

BTW: I'm open to name suggestions, now it's just "the Testday App" :D and it 
lives here: http://testdays.qa.fedoraproject.org/testdays/


Regards, Joza


- Original Message -
> From: "Cole Robinson" 
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases" 
> 
> Cc: "Josef Skladanka" 
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 2:21:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Let's stop using wiki for test results
> 
> On 10/11/2013 07:55 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> > Folks,
> > I've participated both in Virtualization and GNOME test days this week and
> > there is one thing that felt very strange and not easy to use for me.
> > 
> > GNOME test day results were recorded in the wiki, while Virtualization ones
> > in
> > a web app here:
> > http://209.132.184.192/testdays/show_event?event_id=7
> > 
> > 
> > IMO this web app is much easier and faster to use instead of the wiki. And
> > it
> > is not a full blown TCMS like Nitrate, with features that most of the
> > people
> > will not need.
> > 
> > I propose to make use of this web app for future test day results/bug
> > tracking. And give it a name :).
> > 
> 
> Yes please. This tool made my life much easier when managing F19 and F20 virt
> test days, as I'm sure it did for all the people who reported test results.
> 
> There was some promo for it during F19 cycle but not much this time around.
> Maybe jskladan can enlighten us as to the tools future.
> 
> - Cole
> 
> 
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Validation tests not yet run against Final

[Josef Skladanka]

Just a note:

we also have a script which can go through wiki matrices to make statistics, so 
it might be useful (at least) as a source of inspiration.

https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-qa.git/tree/stats/testcase_stats

Run:

$ python testcase_stats.py 19 "Final TC3 Install"

to get stats for the respective matrix. It will create "nice" html page like 
http://jskladan.fedorapeople.org/tc_report/

Meaning of the columns:

Untested X/Y
 - Y represents the sum of all 'fields' where the respective testcase can be 
filled, X represents the number of filled fields
 - e.g. 001/002 for QA:Testcase_Partitioning_No_Swap represents the fact that 
the testcase is filled just for one arch of the two (i386, x86_64), and 003/003 
QA:Testcase_USB_stick_DVD_litd says, that the testcase was run for all i386, 
x86_64 and UEFI.

Pass/Fail/Warn
 - number of results for the respective type of result

dPass
 = Pass - (Fail + Warn)
 - can be interpreted as a 'failure rate' for the specific testcase.


-j-

-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Fedora 18 issues with translations and keymaps

[Josef Skladanka]

ad 1) OK, feel free to ignore this, I don't really have time to go through all 
the bugs in last 4 fedora releases, since it won't (most probably) change your 
opinion.
ad 2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F16_bugs
ad 3) You clearly misunderstood. My email is not meant to discuss approved 
blocker bugs (or even the blocker bug process), and I thought that it should be 
obvious from the thread topic, if nothing else. My bad. But most of the bugs 
adamw pointed out in his email are _IMHO not_ show stoppers. And the IMHO most 
important one (encrypted disks) can be dealt with via common bugs.

Joza


- Original Message -
> From: "drago01" 
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases" 
> 
> Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 4:15:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 18 issues with translations and keymaps
> 
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Josef Skladanka 
> wrote:
> > I'm absolutely +1 with jeischmann and jreznik on this matter.
> > Keyboard layouts are broken almost every other (if not every one)
> > Fedora release.
> 
> [citation needed]
> 
> > The same exact encrypt-prompt issue was (at least) in F16, and we
> > released it anyway.
> 
> [citation needed]
> 
> > I'm not saying that we should just blindly say "it's late, let's
> > ship it",
> 
> You are actually doing that or iow this sentence contradicts the rest
> you wrote.
> --
> test mailing list
> test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Fedora 18 issues with translations and keymaps

[Josef Skladanka]

I'm absolutely +1 with jeischmann and jreznik on this matter. 
Keyboard layouts are broken almost every other (if not every one) Fedora 
release. The same exact encrypt-prompt issue was (at least) in F16, and we 
released it anyway.
I'm not saying that we should just blindly say "it's late, let's ship it", but 
quite a few of these bugs (which adamw mentioned) IMHO are either present (not 
saying the exact ones, but the 'type' of the bugs) in Fedora for quite some 
time already, or just are not clear show-stoppers.

We are getting too much into "we want it all perfect at all costs", instead of 
"we want the best quality possible in the given time interval". Once again, I'm 
not trying to say that we should blindly release "on time", just to get the 
release out "on time". But as the F18 is slipping more and more, I feel like 
"it's late already, so why not postpone it a little bit more, so we can make 
XYZ better" reasoning being more frequent than any time before. 

Joza

- Original Message -
> From: "drago01" 
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases" 
> 
> Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 2:14:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 18 issues with translations and keymaps
> 
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Jaroslav Reznik 
> wrote:
> 
> > For Fedora 18 we already did a lot of compromises but still it's
> > getting to be quite solid release
> 
> "Non working "keyboard (password and encrypt key prompts) is anything
> but "quite solid" it is what I'd call "quite broken".
> --
> test mailing list
> test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Partitioning related testcases (F18 Installation Matrix template changes)

[Josef Skladanka]

OK, I've replaced the testcases, incorporating your suggestions.
At the end, I decided to go with the 'old style' encrypted install (basic 
autopart with enabled encryption).

The testcases now are:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_install
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(use_free_space)_install
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(reclaim)_install
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(shrink)_install
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(encrypted)_install
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_custom_partitioning

J.

- Original Message -
> From: "Kamil Paral" 
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases" 
> 
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 3:37:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Partitioning related testcases (F18 Installation Matrix  
> templatechanges)
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'd like to replace the following test cases:
> > 
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_install
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(encrypted)_install
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(use_all_space)_install
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(shrink)_install
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(use_free_space)_install
> 
> BTW, I believe you should replace the test cases with your new ones
> right away and we can fine-tune them gradually, because honestly,
> anything is better than those outdated test cases.
> --
> test mailing list
> test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Partitioning related testcases (F18 Installation Matrix template changes)

[Josef Skladanka]

Hi,

I'd like to replace the following test cases:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_install
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(encrypted)_install
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(use_all_space)_install
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(shrink)_install
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Anaconda_autopart_(use_free_space)_install

with ones more appropriate to the new Anaconda UI (see below). I'm not that 
sure about the "Encrypted installation" meta-testcase, but I could not think of 
any better way to say "do whatever you want, just create some encrypted 
partitions. Also, this way might be a bit more "suggestive" in how-to report 
bugs for "newcomers" - it IMHO leads to something "I tried Autopart Empty disk 
with encryption".

Thanks for your thoughts

J.



= Autopart Empty disk =

{{QA/Test_Case
|description=This test case tests the installer's ability to use the anaconda 
recommended partition defaults with free disk. 
|actions=
# Start with a disk containing no partitions
# Boot the installer using any available means
# At the Installation Destination screen, be sure that ''Encrypt my data. I'll 
set a passphrase later'' is '''not''' selected
# Select the appropriate disk, and continue installation, choosing all provided 
defaults
|results=
# The system should install successfully
# After install, the system boots successfully
}}
[[Category:Installer_Partitioning_Test_Cases]]
[[Category:Package_anaconda_test_cases]]

= Autopart Free space =

{{QA/Test_Case
|description=This test case tests the installer's ability to use the anaconda 
recommended partition defaults with disk containing enough free space, but also 
other partitions.
|actions=
# Start with a disk containing some partition(s) and enough free space to 
install Fedora
# Boot the installer using any available means
# At the Installation Destination screen, be sure that ''Encrypt my data. I'll 
set a passphrase later'' is '''not''' selected
# Select the appropriate disk, and continue installation, choosing all provided 
defaults
|results=
# The system should install successfully
# After install, the system boots successfully
}}
[[Category:Installer_Partitioning_Test_Cases]]
[[Category:Package_anaconda_test_cases]]

= Autopart Reclaim partitions = 

{{QA/Test_Case
|description=This test case tests the installer's ability to reclaim used space 
and use the anaconda recommended partition defaults.
|actions=
# Start with a disk containing any combination of free space and previously 
created partitions. The free space itself should not be enough to install 
Fedora.
# Boot the installer using any available means
# At the Installation Destination screen, be sure that ''Encrypt my data. I'll 
set a passphrase later'' is '''not''' selected
# Select the appropriate disk, and continue installation
# Use the "Reclaim Space" dialog to select partitions to be used (delete option)
# Finish the instlalation, choosing all provided defaults
|results=
# Anaconda should prompt for an existing partition(s) to reclaim
# Aaconda should successfully use the selected partition(s)
# The system should install successfully
# After install, the system boots successfully
}}
[[Category:Installer_Partitioning_Test_Cases]]
[[Category:Package_anaconda_test_cases]]

= Autopart Shrink partitions = 

{{QA/Test_Case
|description=This test case tests the installer's ability to shrink partition 
and use the anaconda recommended partition defaults.
|actions=
# Start with a disk containing any combination of free space and previously 
created partitions (with filesystems). The free space itself should not be 
enough to install Fedora.
# Boot the installer using any available means
# At the Installation Destination screen, be sure that ''Encrypt my data. I'll 
set a passphrase later'' is '''not''' selected
# Select the appropriate disk, and continue installation
# Use the "Reclaim Space" dialog to select partition to be used (shrink option)
# Finish the instlalation, choosing all provided defaults
|results=
# Anaconda should prompt for an existing partition(s) to reclaim
# Anaconda should successfully resize the selected partition(s)
# The system should install successfully
# After install, the system boots successfully
}}
[[Category:Installer_Partitioning_Test_Cases]]
[[Category:Package_anaconda_test_cases]]

= Custom Partitioning = 

{{QA/Test_Case
|description=This test case tests the installer's ability to use custom 
partitioning.
|actions=
# Boot the installer using any available means
# At the Installation Destination screen, be sure that ''Encrypt my data. I'll 
set a passphrase later'' is '''not''' selected
# Select the appropriate disk, and continue installation
# Use the custom partitioning screen to create disk layout
# Finish the instlalation, choosing all provided defaults
|results=
# Anaconda should succesfully create, destroy and assign mount point

Re: How to interpret F18 Blocker criterion

[Josef Skladanka]

I'm most certainly for _keeping_ the criterion, and I'm not necessarily against 
expanding it also to MacOS, but that's about it (IMHO).

J.

- Original Message -
> From: "Adam Williamson" 
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases" 
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2012 3:09:39 AM
> Subject: Re: How to interpret F18 Blocker criterion
> 
> On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 00:42 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > On 11/07/2012 12:04 AM, drago01 wrote:
> > > That's not absurd ... that's reality.
> > 
> > I'm perfectly well aware how absurd and real that criteria is
> 
> Does anyone else agree with Johann that we should change or remove
> the
> criterion? If there's significant support for that idea I'll throw it
> on
> the meeting agenda for next week, but if no-one else thinks we should
> stop testing and supporting install-alongside-Windows, maybe we
> should
> just leave it there. I think the arguments on both sides have been
> made
> clearly by now.
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
> http://www.happyassassin.net
> 
> --
> test mailing list
> test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: F18 Criterions/Testcases interconnection

[Josef Skladanka]

- Original Message -
> From: "Kamil Paral" 

> No, this is a game of "spot five differences" :-) At least one versus
> all virtual consoles. This can be part of the same test case, marked
> as Alpha/Beta

OK, I'll update the summary page/matrix accordingly. Also I'll try to highlight 
this "at least one/all" difference on the criteria page.

J.
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: F18 Criterions/Testcases interconnection

[Josef Skladanka]

> Well I see your point, but it kind of cuts both ways - Josef clearly
> got
> confused by a few cases where we overload test cases to test several
> different things, so you can argue that it's actually more
> 'accessible'
> when we try to stick to 'one test case tests one thing'. But your
> approach would achieve what we need to achieve indeed.

/me feels a bit ashamed :D

I'm all for 'one test case tests one thing', even though I understand, that 
having several 'similar' testcases which differ in just few words is nonsense 
(as I got equally confused with the _almost the same_ criterions in alpha/beta).

J.
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Installation Matrix Template - new Anaconda related changes

[Josef Skladanka]

> The list I'd come up with so far looks like this:
> 
> 1. autopart empty disk
> 2. autopart existing empty space
> 3. autopart wipe entire disk
> 4. autopart alongside existing
> 5. autopart shrink
> 6. autopart multidisk
> 
> so for 1) you feed it an entirely empty disk and let it autopart into
> it, with as little user input as possible. for 2) you feed it a disk
> with data but also enough empty space for an install and let it
> autopart
> (with the expectation it'll use the empty space and keep whatever was
> already on the disk accessible). for 3) you feed it a full disk and
> use
> 'guided partitioning' to delete all the existing partitions. for 4)
> you
> feed it a disk with two OS installs (or an OS install plus a data
> partition or something), wipe one of the OSes (or the data partition)
> with guided partitioning, and let it autopart into the empty space.
> 5)
> is a full disk with Fedora or Windows on it, shrink the existing OS
> partition and install into that space. 6) is feed it two empty disks
> and
> see what it does. There's more beyond that, but this was the basic
> approach I came up with. WDYT?
> --
> Adam Williamson


Cool, this seems to be more sensible, than warping the current testcases. 
Today, I'll try to review the rest of the testcases and send an email similar 
to the first one, so we can all have a look at it.
Then (if it won't be done yet) I'll draft the new partitioning testcases, based 
on your description.

J.
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Installation Matrix Template - new Anaconda related changes

[Josef Skladanka]

= Obsoleted Testcases =
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Package_Sets_Package_Groups_Check

= Questions/Discussion =

== QA:Testcase Anaconda autopart (use all space) install ==



The current wording requires the user to select "use all space". At the moment, 
Anaconda behaves differently for disk with/without partitions present
Shall we
  1) Describe both variants in one testcase - i.e. something like "If the disk 
contained any partitions, Reclaim all space"
  2) Have separate testcases for each variant
  3) Something completely different

I'm leaning towards #1, but I guess we should discuss this.

== QA:Testcase Anaconda autopart (shrink) install ==



IMHO this testcase will need quite a rewrite, I think something like this could 
do it:

|actions=
# Boot the installer using any available means
# Proceed to the Installation Destination screen
# Choose disk, and select ''Continue''
# At the Installation Options dialog, select ''Reclaim Space''
# Select a previous disk partition to ''Shrink''
# Continue installation, choosing all provided defaults
|results=
# Anaconda should prompt for an existing partition to resize
# Anaconda should successfully resize the selected partition
# The system should install successfully
# After install, the system boots successfully

== QA:Testcase anaconda ext4 rootfs on disk partition ==



As this is basically "the new default", this testcase IMHO could be obsoleted 
(as there is not a 'LVM on rootfs' testcase for F17).
Also, new testcase - anaconda_LVM_on_disk_partition (or something like that) 
should be created as a reasonable replacement


--

More to come tomorrow :)

J.

-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: F18 Criterions/Testcases interconnection

[Josef Skladanka]

Beta is done 
,
 some issues I've come around:

--
5. The installer must be able to use the HTTP, FTP and either NFS or NFSISO 
remote package source options 
- The testcase 
 
is marked as Final

6. It must be possible to install by booting the installation kernel directly, 
including via PXE, and correctly specifying a remote source for the installer 
itself, using whichever protocols are required to work for package retrieval at 
the current phase (Alpha, Beta, Final). This must work if the remote source is 
not a complete repository but contains only the files necessary for the 
installer itself to run.
-  Marked 
as Alpha

9.  The installer must be able to complete an installation using automatic 
partitioning to a validly-formatted disk with sufficient empty space, using the 
empty space and installing a bootloader but leaving the pre-existing partitions 
and data untouched
- Testcases as #12 Alpha criterion
- Testcases do not mention that pre-existing partitions must be untouched

16. When booting a system installed without a graphical environment, or when 
using a correct configuration setting to cause an installed system to boot in 
non-graphical mode, the system should provide a working login prompt without 
any unintended user intervention when boot is complete, and all virtual 
consoles intended to provide a working login prompt should do so
- This is exactly the same as #19 Aplha criterion, maybe we'd like to leave 
it just Alpha or Beta 

23.  All release-blocking desktops' offered mechanisms (if any) for shutting 
down, logging out and rebooting must work 
- IMHO no testcase covers this 
--

J.
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

F18 Criterions/Testcases interconnection

[Josef Skladanka]

Hi,

I started to connect criterions to testcases for the F18 testing. So far, the 
Alpha is done (the messy page with criterions & links to testcases can be found 
here 
),
 and it looks all right. Some problems I've come around:

--

10. The installer must be able to install each of the release blocking 
desktops, as well as the minimal package set, with each supported installation 
method
- We have testcase for the minimal install 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Package_Sets_Minimal_Package_Install 
but IMHO no testcases for the desktops

13. The installer must allow the user to select which of the disks connected to 
the system will be affected by the installation process. Disks not selected as 
installation targets must not be affected by the installation process in any way
- IMHO the same testcases as #12 (partitioning related), but none of them 
requires, that disks not selected must not be affected.

19. When booting a system installed without a graphical environment, or when 
using a correct configuration setting to cause an installed system to boot in 
non-graphical mode, the system should boot to a state where it is possible to 
log in through at least one of the default virtual consoles
- Maybe we'd like to add some specific testcase like 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_base_startup seems to be for 
graphical startup

22. The default desktop background must be different from that of the two 
previous stable releases
- IMHO no testcase coveres this (we have testcases that require 'proper' 
artwork for beta/final though)

23. Any component which prominently identifies a Fedora release version number, 
code name or phase (Alpha, Beta, Final) must do so correctly
- Same as #22 IMHO

25. It must be possible to trigger a system shutdown using standard console 
commands, and the system must shut down in such a way that storage volumes 
(e.g. simple partitions, LVs and PVs, RAID arrays) are taken offline safely and 
the system's BIOS or EFI is correctly requested to power down the system
- IMHO there is no testcase covering this criterion

--

Of couse, I could have missed something, so feel free to point me to the 
respective testcases. In the mean time, I'm going to get my hands dirty with 
Beta and Final criterion pairing.

J.
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

F18 Install test matrix - moved 'upgrade' testcases

[Josef Skladanka]

Hi,

since all the upgrade testcases are basically 'obsolete', as we are still 
waiting for FedUP, and Anaconda does not have any means of upgrading installed 
system, I created a new sub-category of 'Currently Unsupported Testcases' in 
the General Tests subsection of 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_18_Install_Results_Template and moved 
all the testcases.

If there are any more testcases, which do not make sense, or you really 
disagree with the change, then let me know on the list.

Joza
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: New testcase proposal: Dualboot with Windows

[Josef Skladanka]

Hello gang,

as there were no opposing voices, I'll add the test to the test matrix template.
Once again, kudos to adamw for providing the base test.

Joza

- Original Message -
> From: "Josef Skladanka" 
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases" 
> 
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 2:06:24 PM
> Subject: New testcase proposal: Dualboot with Windows
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I'd like to propose new Testcase, to cover the Final criterion: "The
> installer must be able to install into free space alongside an
> existing clean single-partition Windows installation and either
> install a bootloader which can boot into the Windows installation,
> or leave the Windows bootloader untouched and working". The testcase
> Draft is available here (kudos to AdamW for providing most of it)
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jskladan/Draft_QA_Testcase_dualboot_alongside_windows
> 
> C&C most welocomed
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Joza
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: New testcases proposal - Installation from USB-written images (0/5)

[Josef Skladanka]

Hi,

as there were no objections, I added the testcases from this 'series' of emails 
to the Install Test Matrix Template [1]

Regards 

Josef

[1] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_17_Install_Results_Template#USB_Stick

- Original Message -
> From: "Josef Skladanka" 
> To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:53:11 PM
> Subject: New testcases proposal - Installation from USB-written images (0/5)
> 
> Hello,
> 
> as per [1] and [2], I'd like to propose five new testcases, which
> focus on testing the ability to boot/install Fedora using USB stick
> as the installation/boot medium. Even though, there is no Release
> Criterion specifying the supported installation media, the [2]
> mentions 'Common Boot media / Common Installation sources' (Alpha
> verifiacation) and 'All Boot media / All Installation sources'.
> These IMHO support the need for new USB-centric testcases.
> 
> Please be informed, that these proposals based on the already
> existing testcases, and I will be really happy to change/update
> these according to your input.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Joza
> 
> [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/260
> [2]
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_17_Install_Test_Plan#Test_Priority
> --
> test mailing list
> test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

New testcase proposal: Dualboot with Windows

[Josef Skladanka]

Hello,

I'd like to propose new Testcase, to cover the Final criterion: "The installer 
must be able to install into free space alongside an existing clean 
single-partition Windows installation and either install a bootloader which can 
boot into the Windows installation, or leave the Windows bootloader untouched 
and working". The testcase Draft is available here (kudos to AdamW for 
providing most of it)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jskladan/Draft_QA_Testcase_dualboot_alongside_windows

C&C most welocomed

Thanks

Joza
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Installation from USB-written images (5/5): DVD.iso + Livecd-iso-to-disk

[Josef Skladanka]

Hi,

thank you for the suggestions, as with the live.iso testcases, I'll just 
continue in this particular thread, since both DVD testcases are 'the same'.
I've updated the testcases [1][2], so they contain the standard 'proceed with 
installation' steps, and the final 'boots without usb stick plugged in'. The 
testcase(s) now look like this:

---


How to test

Insert the USB stick containing DVD.iso, and boot the installer
Proceed through install process selecting a set of packages
Remove the USB stick before rebooting into installed system when instructed 
by installer.
Check that the computer boots to the installed system, with the USB stick 
unplugged 

Expected Results

Graphical boot menu is displayed for users to select install options. 
Navigating the menu and selecting entries must work. If no option is selected, 
the installer should load after a reasonable timeout
Installer boots into loader and prompts for language, keymap
Installer transitions to anaconda without error
The installer should not require you to configure a package repository, it 
should be able to install using the packages present on the USB stick.
Anaconda functions properly and successfully installs required packages
Package errors should not occur
The installed system boots successfully. 

---

j.

[1] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jskladan/Draft_QA_Testcase_USB_stick_DVD_litd
[2] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jskladan/Draft_QA_Testcase_USB_stick_DVD_dd

- Original Message -
> From: "Adam Williamson" 
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases" 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:26:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Installation from USB-written images (5/5): DVD.iso +
> Livecd-iso-to-disk
> 
> On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 08:17 -0500, Josef Skladanka wrote:
> > This testcase [1] should ensure, that if the user uses USB stick
> > and transfers the DVD.iso to it using Livecd-iso-to-disk, the
> > installation can be successfully finished.
> > Installer should be able to use the DVD local package source
> > options, but this is caused by the way LITD writes the image to
> > the USB stick.
> > 
> > I propose this as a Alpha verification testcase.
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > = Description =
> > 
> > This test verifies that Fedora DVD Image can be booted & installed
> > from USB stick
> > 
> > There are more methods to create the DVD.iso USB stick, this test
> > covers Livecd-iso-to-disk.
> > 
> > == Setup ==
> > 
> > * Prepare the DVD ISO image and USB stick.
> > * Copy the DVD.iso to the USB stick using Livecd-iso-to-disk.  [3]
> > 
> > == How to test ==
> > 
> > * Insert the USB stick containing DVD.iso, and boot the system
> > under test
> > * Proceed with the installation the usual way.
> > 
> > == Expected Results ==
> > 
> > * Graphical boot menu is displayed for users to select install
> > options. Navigating the menu and selecting entries must work. If
> > no option is selected, the installer should load after a
> > reasonable timeout
> > * Installer boots into loader and prompts for language, keymap
> > * Installer transitions to anaconda without error
> > * Installer should be able to use the DVD local package source
> > options
> 
> We could make this a bit clearer - something like 'the installer
> should
> not require you to configure a package repository, it should be able
> to
> install using the packages present on the USB stick'.
> 
> > * ??? Installer does not offer the USB stick as a target for
> > bootloader and/or partitioning
> 
> We could probably add bits to the 'how to test' section for this,
> something like. For instance, ask the user to boot the installed
> system
> without the USB stick plugged in, to ensure the bootloader was
> installed
> to the hard disk, not the USB stick.
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
> http://www.happyassassin.net
> 
> --
> test mailing list
> test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: Installation from USB-written images (1/5): Live.iso + dd

[Josef Skladanka]

Thanks, Adam,

as these are all 'the same', I'll just continue in this particular thread. I've 
updated the testcases [1][2][3], to cover the installation procedure. The 
testcase(s) now look like this:

---


How to test

Insert the USB stick containing Live.iso, and boot the system under test
At the boot prompt, interrupt the automatic boot sequence by pressing any 
key. Then select the menu option Boot.
From live image desktop, or from the Application menu, click the icon 
Install to hard drive
Complete the installation as desired
Reboot the system and remove the Live boot media 

Expected Results

A graphical boot menu is displayed and the graphics look reasonably good. 
While hi-res images aren't supported in the boot menu, the graphics should not 
look extremely pixelated.
Upon selecting Boot, the Live image boots successfully.
The installer starts without error
The installer completes without error
The system reboots successfully 

---

[1] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jskladan/Draft_QA_Testcase_USB_stick_Live_dd
[2] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jskladan/Draft_QA_Testcase_USB_stick_Live_lcdt
[3] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jskladan/Draft_QA_Testcase_USB_stick_Live_litd

- Original Message -
> From: "Adam Williamson" 
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases" 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:23:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Installation from USB-written images (1/5): Live.iso + dd
> 
> On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 07:58 -0500, Josef Skladanka wrote:
> > This testcase [1] should ensure, that if the user uses dd to
> > transfer the Fedora Live.iso to USB stick, the boot process works
> > 'as expected'.
> > 
> > I propose this as a Alpha verification testcase.
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > = Description =
> > 
> > This test verifies that Fedora Live Image can be booted from USB
> > stick.
> > 
> > There are more methods to create the Live USB stick, this test
> > covers dd.
> > 
> > == Setup ==
> > 
> > * Prepare the Live ISO image and USB stick.
> > * Copy the Live.iso to the USB stick using dd [1]
> > 
> > == How to test ==
> > 
> > * Insert the USB stick containing Live.iso, and boot the system
> > under test
> > * At the boot prompt, interrupt the automatic boot sequence by
> > pressing any key. Then select the menu option Boot.
> > 
> > == Expected Results ==
> > 
> > * A graphical boot menu is displayed and the graphics look
> > reasonably good. While hi-res images aren't supported in the boot
> > menu, the graphics should not look extremely pixelated.
> > * Upon selecting Boot, the Live image boots successfully.
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [1]
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jskladan/Draft_QA_Testcase_USB_stick_Live_dd
> 
> Thanks for your work on this!
> 
> For the three test cases that cover writing live images to USB,
> including this one, we want to test not just that the image *boots*,
> but
> that an installation can be successfully performed using the stick.
> Could you extend the test cases to cover this?
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
> http://www.happyassassin.net
> 
> --
> test mailing list
> test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Installation from USB-written images (5/5): DVD.iso + Livecd-iso-to-disk

[Josef Skladanka]

This testcase [1] should ensure, that if the user uses USB stick and transfers 
the DVD.iso to it using Livecd-iso-to-disk, the installation can be 
successfully finished.
Installer should be able to use the DVD local package source options, but this 
is caused by the way LITD writes the image to the USB stick.

I propose this as a Alpha verification testcase.

---

= Description =

This test verifies that Fedora DVD Image can be booted & installed from USB 
stick

There are more methods to create the DVD.iso USB stick, this test covers 
Livecd-iso-to-disk. 

== Setup ==

* Prepare the DVD ISO image and USB stick.
* Copy the DVD.iso to the USB stick using Livecd-iso-to-disk.  [3]

== How to test ==

* Insert the USB stick containing DVD.iso, and boot the system under test
* Proceed with the installation the usual way. 

== Expected Results ==

* Graphical boot menu is displayed for users to select install options. 
Navigating the menu and selecting entries must work. If no option is selected, 
the installer should load after a reasonable timeout
* Installer boots into loader and prompts for language, keymap
* Installer transitions to anaconda without error
* Installer should be able to use the DVD local package source options 
* ??? Installer does not offer the USB stick as a target for bootloader and/or 
partitioning 

---

[1] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jskladan/Draft_QA_Testcase_USB_stick_DVD_litd
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Alpha_Release_Criteria
[3] 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_and_use_Live_USB#Run_livecd-iso-to-disk_script
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Installation from USB-written images (4/5): DVD.iso + dd

[Josef Skladanka]

This testcase [1] should ensure, that if the user uses USB stick and transfers 
the DVD.iso to it using dd, the installation can be successfully finished.
Even though this technically is DVD.iso, we do not require anaconda to 
successfully use the DVD local package source options (F17 Alpha Release 
Criterion #7).

I propose this as a Alpha verification testcase.

---

= Description =

This test verifies that Fedora DVD Image can be booted & installed from USB 
stick

There are more methods to create the DVD.iso USB stick, this test covers dd.

== Setup ==

* Prepare the DVD ISO image and USB stick.
* Copy the DVD.iso to the USB stick using dd [3]

== How to test ==

* Insert the USB stick containing DVD.iso, and boot the system under test
* Proceed with the installation the usual way. 

== Expected Results ==

* Graphical boot menu is displayed for users to select install options. 
Navigating the menu and selecting entries must work. If no option is selected, 
the installer should load after a reasonable timeout
* Installer boots into loader and prompts for language, keymap
* Installer transitions to anaconda without error
* ??? Installer does not offer the USB stick as a target for bootloader and/or 
partitioning 

---

[1] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jskladan/Draft_QA_Testcase_USB_stick_DVD_dd
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Alpha_Release_Criteria
[3] 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_and_use_Live_USB#Using_dd_for_a_direct_copy
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Installation from USB-written images (3/5): Live.iso + LiveCD-tools

[Josef Skladanka]

This testcase [1] should ensure, that if the user uses LiveCD tools to transfer 
the Fedora Live.iso to USB stick, the boot process works 'as expected'.

I propose this as a Alpha verification testcase.

---

= Description =

This test verifies that Fedora Live Image can be booted from USB stick.

There are more methods to create the Live USB stick, this test covers 
Livecd-tools. 

== Setup ==

* Prepare the Live ISO image and USB stick.
* Copy the Live.iso to the USB stick using LiveCD tools [2]

== How to test ==

* Insert the USB stick containing Live.iso, and boot the system under test
* At the boot prompt, interrupt the automatic boot sequence by pressing any 
key. Then select the menu option Boot.

== Expected Results ==

* A graphical boot menu is displayed and the graphics look reasonably good. 
While hi-res images aren't supported in the boot menu, the graphics should not 
look extremely pixelated.
* Upon selecting Boot, the Live image boots successfully.

---



[1] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jskladan/Draft_QA_Testcase_USB_stick_Live_dd
[2] 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_and_use_Live_USB#Check_livecd-tools
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Installation from USB-written images (1/5): Live.iso + Livecd-iso-to-disk

[Josef Skladanka]

This testcase [1] should ensure, that if the user uses Livecd-iso-to-disk to 
transfer the Fedora Live.iso to USB stick, the boot process works 'as expected'.

I propose this as a Alpha verification testcase.

---

= Description =

This test verifies that Fedora Live Image can be booted from USB stick.

There are more methods to create the Live USB stick, this test covers 
Livecd-iso-to-disk. 

== Setup ==

* Prepare the Live ISO image and USB stick.
* Copy the Live.iso to the USB stick using Livecd-iso-to-disk [2]

== How to test ==

* Insert the USB stick containing Live.iso, and boot the system under test
* At the boot prompt, interrupt the automatic boot sequence by pressing any 
key. Then select the menu option Boot. 

== Expected Results ==

* A graphical boot menu is displayed and the graphics look reasonably good. 
While hi-res images aren't supported in the boot menu, the graphics should not 
look extremely pixelated.
* Upon selecting Boot, the Live image boots successfully. 

---



[1] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jskladan/Draft_QA_Testcase_USB_stick_Live_litd
[2] 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_and_use_Live_USB#Run_livecd-iso-to-disk_script
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Installation from USB-written images (1/5): Live.iso + dd

[Josef Skladanka]

This testcase [1] should ensure, that if the user uses dd to transfer the 
Fedora Live.iso to USB stick, the boot process works 'as expected'.

I propose this as a Alpha verification testcase.

---

= Description =

This test verifies that Fedora Live Image can be booted from USB stick.

There are more methods to create the Live USB stick, this test covers dd.

== Setup ==

* Prepare the Live ISO image and USB stick.
* Copy the Live.iso to the USB stick using dd [1] 

== How to test ==

* Insert the USB stick containing Live.iso, and boot the system under test
* At the boot prompt, interrupt the automatic boot sequence by pressing any 
key. Then select the menu option Boot. 

== Expected Results ==

* A graphical boot menu is displayed and the graphics look reasonably good. 
While hi-res images aren't supported in the boot menu, the graphics should not 
look extremely pixelated.
* Upon selecting Boot, the Live image boots successfully. 

---



[1] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jskladan/Draft_QA_Testcase_USB_stick_Live_dd
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

New testcases proposal - Installation from USB-written images (0/5)

[Josef Skladanka]

Hello,

as per [1] and [2], I'd like to propose five new testcases, which focus on 
testing the ability to boot/install Fedora using USB stick as the 
installation/boot medium. Even though, there is no Release Criterion specifying 
the supported installation media, the [2] mentions 'Common Boot media / Common 
Installation sources' (Alpha verifiacation) and 'All Boot media / All 
Installation sources'. These IMHO support the need for new USB-centric 
testcases.

Please be informed, that these proposals based on the already existing 
testcases, and I will be really happy to change/update these according to your 
input.

Regards

Joza

[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/260
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_17_Install_Test_Plan#Test_Priority
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

2010-06-21 @ ** 15:00 UTC ** - Fedora QA meeting minutes

[Josef Skladanka]

==
#fedora-meeting: Fedora QA Meeting
==


Meeting started by jlaska at 14:59:57 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-06-21/fedora-qa.2010-06-21-14.59.log.html
.



Meeting summary
---
* Gathering critical mass  (jlaska, 15:00:05)
   * IDEA: New QA motto - "Testing Fedora is like stuffing a badger down
 your trousers; you don't really know when it's going to bite."
 (jlaska, 15:02:46)

* Previous meeting follow-up  (jlaska, 15:04:44)
   * jlaska to check-in with lmacken on the status of
 https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/424  (jlaska, 15:04:55)
   * adamw to forward wwoods a good explanation of the nss-softokn
 problem scenario to ensure autoqa catches it in future  (jlaska,
 15:06:44)
   * LINK:
 https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2010-June/000703.html
 (jlaska, 15:07:16)
   * ACTION: wwoods to evaluate nss-softokn dependency problem for proper
 'depcheck' coverage  (jlaska, 15:09:10)
   * jlaska to propose a clean-up of the Critical Path Packages wiki to
 be a suitable home for critpath information  (jlaska, 15:11:04)
   * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages
 (jlaska, 15:12:05)
   * ACTION: jlaska to cleanup (or remove) the Critical Path
 Packages#Background section so that it provides _some_ value
 (jlaska, 15:16:30)

* F14 QA Recommendations  (jlaska, 15:16:58)
   * Jlaska organized Fedora_13_QA_Retrospective feedback into a list of
 QA recommendations for Fedora 14.  (jlaska, 15:17:32)

* Proventester Update  (jlaska, 15:22:44)

* Systemd QA preparation  (jlaska, 15:30:33)
   * Viking-ice noted that Features/systemd was approved by FESCO and
 wanted to propose several QA ideas.  (jlaska, 15:30:53)
   * adamw reached out to lennart for interest on a F14 test day
 (jlaska, 15:32:19)
   * ACTION: Viking-Ice will start 'how to debug systemd problems' guide
 and send to list for review  (jlaska, 15:35:58)
   * ACTION: jlaska to review F14 test day wiki content  (jlaska,
 15:36:39)

* AutoQA updates (initscripts, prioritization status)  (kparal,
   15:40:15)
   * LINK:
 https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/2010-June/000687.html
 (jskladan, 15:43:52)
   * jskladan wrote an explanation how to contribute with initscripts,
 will put it on the wiki  (kparal, 15:46:47)
   * jlaska gathered huge number of machines available for autoqa testing
 (kparal, 15:47:06)
   * Infrastructure team comes to QA's rescue -- thanks mmcgrath and
 smooge!  (jlaska, 15:48:04)
   * jskladan recruited another volunteer to help up with virtualization,
 Ray Chen  (kparal, 15:48:57)

* Open discussion   (kparal, 15:51:36)
   * Interesting test idea for anyone interested --
 http://blog.famillecollet.com/post/2010/06/20/ABI-:-stability-check
 (jlaska, 15:52:34)

* TCs/RCs archive  (kparal, 15:52:50)
   * ACTION: robatino to ask infrastructure team to archive previous
 RCs/TCs  (kparal, 15:57:23)

* test case: ABI - stability check  (kparal, 15:58:13)
   * http://blog.famillecollet.com/post/2010/06/20/ABI-:-stability-check
 (kparal, 15:58:23)
   * LINK:
 http://blog.famillecollet.com/post/2010/06/20/ABI-:-stability-check
 (kparal, 15:58:31)
   * ACTION: jlaska to create a ticket about possible enhancement/new
 test case for ABI stability check  (kparal, 16:02:09)

* Open discussion   (kparal, 16:02:36)

Meeting ended at 16:04:27 UTC.




Action Items

* wwoods to evaluate nss-softokn dependency problem for proper
   'depcheck' coverage
* jlaska to cleanup (or remove) the Critical Path Packages#Background
   section so that it provides _some_ value
* Viking-Ice will start 'how to debug systemd problems' guide and send
   to list for review
* jlaska to review F14 test day wiki content
* robatino to ask infrastructure team to archive previous RCs/TCs
* jlaska to create a ticket about possible enhancement/new test case for
   ABI stability check




Action Items, by person
---
* jlaska
   * jlaska to cleanup (or remove) the Critical Path Packages#Background
 section so that it provides _some_ value
   * jlaska to review F14 test day wiki content
   * jlaska to create a ticket about possible enhancement/new test case
 for ABI stability check
* robatino
   * robatino to ask infrastructure team to archive previous RCs/TCs
* Viking-Ice
   * Viking-Ice will start 'how to debug systemd problems' guide and send
 to list for review
* **UNASSIGNED**
   * wwoods to evaluate nss-softokn dependency problem for proper
 'depcheck' coverage




People Present (lines said)
---
* jlaska (103)
* kparal (56)
* adamw (38)
* jskladan (17)
* Viking-Ice (8)
* robatino (6)
* zodbot (4)
* mmcgrath (2)
* dafrito (1)




Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4

.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot



Minu