7:03 a.m.
Hello,
I'm happy to announce that in the git there is a
kparal/rpmguard-integration branch available containing my latest
effort to bring rpmguard to autoqa. I would be glad for any feedback
provided. If you want to see it in action easily, you can run e.g.
this command:
$ autoqa post-koji-build --name ctdb --kojitag dist-f12-updates-candidate --arch x86_64
--arch i686 ctdb-1.0.108-1.fc12 -t rpmguard
(append --local if you have only autotest-client installed)
That should be working until ctdb gets the update-candidate tag off.
Example output is here:
http://pastebin.com/m73c45d08
I have some concerns about current implementation, what should be
improved and when the test could fail, but I'll cover that in some
further emails.
What about the output format, Will? Should something be changed?
Thanks,
Kamil
7:39 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] Make rpmlint happy
From: James Laska <jlaska(a)flatline.(none)>
---
tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py | 1 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py b/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py
index 2beab31..e5056a6 100644
--- a/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py
+++ b/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py
@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
-#!/usr/bin/env python
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
#
# Copyright 2009, Red Hat, Inc.
--
1.6.5.2
8:07 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] Make rpmlint happy
----- "James Laska" <jlaska(a)redhat.com> wrote:
From: James Laska <jlaska(a)flatline.(none)>
---
tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py | 1 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py b/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py
index 2beab31..e5056a6 100644
--- a/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py
+++ b/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py
@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
-#!/usr/bin/env python
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
#
# Copyright 2009, Red Hat, Inc.
--
1.6.5.2
I'm sorry, I don't get it. What's wrong on the first line and what
connection does it have to rpmlint?
9:10 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] Make rpmlint happy
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:07 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
----- "James Laska" <jlaska(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> From: James Laska <jlaska(a)flatline.(none)>
>
> ---
> tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py | 1 -
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py b/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py
> index 2beab31..e5056a6 100644
> --- a/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py
> +++ b/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py
> @@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
> -#!/usr/bin/env python
> # -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
> #
> # Copyright 2009, Red Hat, Inc.
> --
> 1.6.5.2
>
I'm sorry, I don't get it. What's wrong on the first line and what
connection does it have to rpmlint?
It's just something that needs cleaning up (or an explanation) before
going through Fedora package review. If a file header contains
"#!/usr/bin/something" it's expected that it should be flagged as an
executable script in the package. Otherwise, rpmlint will provide an
error as below:
autoqa.noarch: E:
non-executable-script /usr/share/autotest/client/site_tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py 0644
/usr/bin/env
So you can either fix it by making the script executable, or removing
the header. In this case, and in my understanding, the script is meant
to be included or imported and not called directly. So removing the
header seemed most appropriate.
Hope that helps.
Thanks,
James
2:05 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] Make rpmlint happy
----- "James Laska" <jlaska(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:07 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> ----- "James Laska" <jlaska(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > From: James Laska <jlaska(a)flatline.(none)>
> >
> > ---
> > tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py | 1 -
> > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py
b/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py
> > index 2beab31..e5056a6 100644
> > --- a/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py
> > +++ b/tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py
> > @@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
> > -#!/usr/bin/env python
> > # -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
> > #
> > # Copyright 2009, Red Hat, Inc.
> > --
> > 1.6.5.2
> >
>
> I'm sorry, I don't get it. What's wrong on the first line and what
> connection does it have to rpmlint?
It's just something that needs cleaning up (or an explanation) before
going through Fedora package review. If a file header contains
"#!/usr/bin/something" it's expected that it should be flagged as an
executable script in the package. Otherwise, rpmlint will provide an
error as below:
autoqa.noarch: E:
non-executable-script
/usr/share/autotest/client/site_tests/rpmguard/rpmguard.py 0644
/usr/bin/env
Oh, I didn't know that.
So you can either fix it by making the script executable, or removing
the header. In this case, and in my understanding, the script is
meant
to be included or imported and not called directly. So removing the
header seemed most appropriate.
Thanks, committed!
Hope that helps.
Thanks,
James
_______________________________________________
autoqa-devel mailing list
autoqa-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/autoqa-devel
9:06 a.m.
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 08:03 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
Hello,
I'm happy to announce that in the git there is a
kparal/rpmguard-integration branch available containing my latest
effort to bring rpmguard to autoqa. I would be glad for any feedback
provided. If you want to see it in action easily, you can run e.g.
this command:
$ autoqa post-koji-build --name ctdb --kojitag dist-f12-updates-candidate --arch x86_64
--arch i686 ctdb-1.0.108-1.fc12 -t rpmguard
(append --local if you have only autotest-client installed)
That should be working until ctdb gets the update-candidate tag off.
Example output is here:
http://pastebin.com/m73c45d08
I have some concerns about current implementation, what should be
improved and when the test could fail, but I'll cover that in some
further emails.
What about the output format, Will? Should something be changed?
Nice work Kamil, this looks great. I don't mind the output format to be
honest, but I think the discussion you and Will had during the recent QA
meeting [1] about collapsing results from different architectures
together makes sense. We probably want to err on the side of displaying
less information for developer review than scaring them away with tons
of repeated information. Besides, we can scare them later by just
providing the results against their builds :)
I don't think this is specific to the rpmguard test, but it's a little
confusing for me (not knowing the internals) to see two different
scripts 'rpmguard' and 'rpmguard.py' in the test directory. Looking
further, I believe rpmguard.py provides the class that autotest calls
from the provided control file and is intended to be imported only. Is
that correct?
Some other thoughts ...
* I like how you're using the setup() method and checking for
specific versions of required software. I imagine this might
become a common thing, I wonder if in the future we could offer
a common require_version() method in the autoqa base package
* In the initialize() method ... should we look into using mktemp
(or similar) here instead of os.makedirs? Could multiple runs
of the test pick-up stale data?
* In run_once(), I like that you are displaying errors on stdout
as well as in the log. I wonder if we could rely on the python
logging module (or a common autoqa logging subclass to provide
proper format and loglevels) to send results to multiple places?
The trick I think will be writing this such that it can still
run in stand-alone mode. Looks like Lucas and Michael are doing
similar things with integrating the KVM tests into upstream
autotest [2]. Is this something we could make use of as well?
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20091214#rpmguard_integration
[2] http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/40190/
8:51 a.m.
CC +jhutar for rpmfluff comments below ...
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 08:03 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
Hello,
I'm happy to announce that in the git there is a
kparal/rpmguard-integration branch available containing my latest
effort to bring rpmguard to autoqa. I would be glad for any feedback
provided. If you want to see it in action easily, you can run e.g.
this command:
$ autoqa post-koji-build --name ctdb --kojitag dist-f12-updates-candidate --arch x86_64
--arch i686 ctdb-1.0.108-1.fc12 -t rpmguard
(append --local if you have only autotest-client installed)
That should be working until ctdb gets the update-candidate tag off.
Example output is here:
http://pastebin.com/m73c45d08
I have some concerns about current implementation, what should be
improved and when the test could fail, but I'll cover that in some
further emails.
What about the output format, Will? Should something be changed?
Another nice thing about your branch is the built-in test code
'rpmguard_test.py'. I noticed that it relies on rpmfluff [1] which
isn't packaged yet.
Anyone interested in packaging rpmfluff for Fedora?
Thanks,
James
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/rpmfluff/
12:08 p.m.
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:51:05 +0000 James Laska
<jlaska(a)redhat.com> wrote:
CC +jhutar for rpmfluff comments below ...
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 08:03 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm happy to announce that in the git there is a
> kparal/rpmguard-integration branch available containing my
> latest effort to bring rpmguard to autoqa. I would be glad
> for any feedback provided. If you want to see it in action
> easily, you can run e.g. this command:
>
> $ autoqa post-koji-build --name ctdb --kojitag
> dist-f12-updates-candidate --arch x86_64 --arch i686
> ctdb-1.0.108-1.fc12 -t rpmguard (append --local if you have
> only autotest-client installed)
>
> That should be working until ctdb gets the update-candidate
> tag off. Example output is here:
> http://pastebin.com/m73c45d08
>
> I have some concerns about current implementation, what
> should be improved and when the test could fail, but I'll
> cover that in some further emails.
>
> What about the output format, Will? Should something be
> changed?
Another nice thing about your branch is the built-in test code
'rpmguard_test.py'. I noticed that it relies on rpmfluff [1]
which isn't packaged yet.
Anyone interested in packaging rpmfluff for Fedora?
Thanks,
James
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/rpmfluff/
Hello,
I have rpmfluff packaged in:
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/r/p/rpmfluff/
and if you want, I can start with getting it into the Fedora.
Should I?
Regards,
Jan
--
Jan Hutar Systems Management QA
jhutar(a)redhat.com Red Hat, Inc.
12:14 p.m.
On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 19:08 +0100, Jan Hutař wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:51:05 +0000 James Laska
<jlaska(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> CC +jhutar for rpmfluff comments below ...
>
> On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 08:03 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm happy to announce that in the git there is a
> > kparal/rpmguard-integration branch available containing my
> > latest effort to bring rpmguard to autoqa. I would be glad
> > for any feedback provided. If you want to see it in action
> > easily, you can run e.g. this command:
> >
> > $ autoqa post-koji-build --name ctdb --kojitag
> > dist-f12-updates-candidate --arch x86_64 --arch i686
> > ctdb-1.0.108-1.fc12 -t rpmguard (append --local if you have
> > only autotest-client installed)
> >
> > That should be working until ctdb gets the update-candidate
> > tag off. Example output is here:
> > http://pastebin.com/m73c45d08
> >
> > I have some concerns about current implementation, what
> > should be improved and when the test could fail, but I'll
> > cover that in some further emails.
> >
> > What about the output format, Will? Should something be
> > changed?
>
> Another nice thing about your branch is the built-in test code
> 'rpmguard_test.py'. I noticed that it relies on rpmfluff [1]
> which isn't packaged yet.
>
> Anyone interested in packaging rpmfluff for Fedora?
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
> [1] https://fedorahosted.org/rpmfluff/
>
Hello,
I have rpmfluff packaged in:
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/r/p/rpmfluff/
and if you want, I can start with getting it into the Fedora.
Should I?
It's probably not going to inhibit the package review of autoqa since
rpmfluff is only used during Kamil's rpmguard test procedures. However,
rpmguard seems like a generally useful tool.
If you have time to submit a review request, that would be great --
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
Thanks,
James
1:59 a.m.
----- "Jan Hutař" <jhutar(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hello,
I have rpmfluff packaged in:
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/r/p/rpmfluff/
and if you want, I can start with getting it into the Fedora.
Should I?
Regards,
Jan
Hi,
rpmfluff is a very nice tool, I believe more projects would
benefit of it than just rpmguard. If you can get it into Fedora
it would be great.
Kamil
3:21 a.m.
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:59:07 -0500 (EST) Kamil Paral
<kparal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
----- "Jan Hutař" <jhutar(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I have rpmfluff packaged in:
>
> https://fedorahosted.org/releases/r/p/rpmfluff/
>
> and if you want, I can start with getting it into the Fedora.
> Should I?
>
> Regards,
> Jan
>
Hi,
rpmfluff is a very nice tool, I believe more projects would
benefit of it than just rpmguard. If you can get it into Fedora
it would be great.
Kamil
Hi,
thanks & review request created:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548694
Regards,
Jan
--
Jan Hutar Systems Management QA
jhutar(a)redhat.com Red Hat, Inc.
2:01 a.m.
----- "James Laska" <jlaska(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Another nice thing about your branch is the built-in test code
'rpmguard_test.py'. I noticed that it relies on rpmfluff [1] which
isn't packaged yet.
I use it for testing, but it's not fully automated. It creates
an example RPMs for you and you just run rpmguard on it manually
and examine the output. Just for clarification. Automated testing
would be great, I have a ticket for it :)
5258
days inactive
5262
days old
autoqa-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
11 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
James Laska -
Jan Hutař -
Kamil Paral